4 ms·
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 advertis
by 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 agoAnd 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.