4 ms·

Seems very pragmatic to me. Actually "If people feel uncomfortable watching it in public" is vague but reasonably good guideline. It has to be nary impossible

Seems very pragmatic to me. Actually "If people feel uncomfortable watching it in public" is vague but reasonably good guideline. It has to be nary impossible to draw the line in so many cases, but the guidelines seem reasonable and the line will roughly get drawn about there.

emsy 9y ago
So if I'm uncomfortable to watch a video in public about, let's say "How to avoid getting STDs", which is clearly something me and probably a lot of people would benefit from, it should be demonetized?
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  If advertisers do not wanted be associated with the content then yes. This is all about advertisers. YT cost money to run and that money comes from advertisers.
  - emsy 9y ago
    And eyeballs for advertisers come from content. For example Laci Green has up to several million views on her videos. So she pulls a lot of people onto the platform. But because sex ed is "uncomfortable" she shouldn't be able to monetize? That isn't quite fair to the creators either. (I'm talking about the general moral juxtaposition, not Google's interests)
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      "That isn't quite fair to the creators either." It's fair if it's clear and applied reasonably consistently. Google makes completely arbitrary moral judgements about 'advertising guns' - which I might support, but they are arbitrary. With this - it's about advertisers interests, not Googles. If Coca Cola et. al. don't want their ads jammed into CardiB rapping about her vagina, her butt, your python, and her vagina again - well that's Coke's prerogative. Surely.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  " it should be demonetized?" I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program. This is not 'banning or censoring videos' - this is basically 'deciding which bits of content advertisers want to pay for'. Different game.
  - emsy 9y ago
    >I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. That's irrelevant to the argument. >I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program. I didn't say that and I haven't picked up that argument anywhere else really. I merely refuted your argument that something "comfortable to watch" is a good metric for this program. I came up with this example off the top of my head. And you would find a lot of suitable advertisers for this kind of content as well. Please stick to the original argument, that "comfortable to watch" is a good metric instead of strawmanning me with censorship and forced payments.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      "I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. That's irrelevant to the argument." It's relevant because we are discussing which videos can and cannot be monetized - some are not intended to be monetized. "comfortable to watch" - is actually a perfect way to communicate a complex and nuanced issue, in a simple way to various audiences - internal, operational, close ad partners, long tail ad partners. It reasonably summarizes the otherwise reasonable policy. And yes - someone talking about explicit sexual subjects for whatever reason definitely falls in that category, because advertisers would be weary of it. Google wants it that way for obvious reasons, and it seems like it's working. Finally - there is nothing to report here. It's great that we get some insight, but this has to be a fairly naive view of 'insider reporting'. There is no story. Google has a reasonable policy for determining which content is good for ads, in general, and which is not. They seem to be acting professionally on it. This is people doing their jobs reasonably well especially with nuanced things. If this story were about content removal or censoring, it would be a different discussion.

emsy 9y ago

So if I'm uncomfortable to watch a video in public about, let's say "How to avoid getting STDs", which is clearly something me and probably a lot of people would benefit from, it should be demonetized?

jacksmith21006 9y ago
If advertisers do not wanted be associated with the content then yes. This is all about advertisers. YT cost money to run and that money comes from advertisers.
- emsy 9y ago
  And eyeballs for advertisers come from content. For example Laci Green has up to several million views on her videos. So she pulls a lot of people onto the platform. But because sex ed is "uncomfortable" she shouldn't be able to monetize? That isn't quite fair to the creators either. (I'm talking about the general moral juxtaposition, not Google's interests)
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    "That isn't quite fair to the creators either." It's fair if it's clear and applied reasonably consistently. Google makes completely arbitrary moral judgements about 'advertising guns' - which I might support, but they are arbitrary. With this - it's about advertisers interests, not Googles. If Coca Cola et. al. don't want their ads jammed into CardiB rapping about her vagina, her butt, your python, and her vagina again - well that's Coke's prerogative. Surely.
alexasmyths 9y ago
" it should be demonetized?" I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program. This is not 'banning or censoring videos' - this is basically 'deciding which bits of content advertisers want to pay for'. Different game.
- emsy 9y ago
  >I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. That's irrelevant to the argument. >I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program. I didn't say that and I haven't picked up that argument anywhere else really. I merely refuted your argument that something "comfortable to watch" is a good metric for this program. I came up with this example off the top of my head. And you would find a lot of suitable advertisers for this kind of content as well. Please stick to the original argument, that "comfortable to watch" is a good metric instead of strawmanning me with censorship and forced payments.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    "I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. That's irrelevant to the argument." It's relevant because we are discussing which videos can and cannot be monetized - some are not intended to be monetized. "comfortable to watch" - is actually a perfect way to communicate a complex and nuanced issue, in a simple way to various audiences - internal, operational, close ad partners, long tail ad partners. It reasonably summarizes the otherwise reasonable policy. And yes - someone talking about explicit sexual subjects for whatever reason definitely falls in that category, because advertisers would be weary of it. Google wants it that way for obvious reasons, and it seems like it's working. Finally - there is nothing to report here. It's great that we get some insight, but this has to be a fairly naive view of 'insider reporting'. There is no story. Google has a reasonable policy for determining which content is good for ads, in general, and which is not. They seem to be acting professionally on it. This is people doing their jobs reasonably well especially with nuanced things. If this story were about content removal or censoring, it would be a different discussion.