4 ms·

" 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.

" 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

>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.