4 ms·

> But the market should have naturally handled it. It did. Advertisers don't want to be associated with such content and made it clear to Youtube they want a

by csydas 9y ago

> But the market should have naturally handled it. It did. Advertisers don't want to be associated with such content and made it clear to Youtube they want a sanitized landscape to advertise on. Youtube in response has cut Paul off from the Guaranteed Revenue Stream for now. The business partners involved in this situation spoke a long time ago on what they did and did not want, and Youtube made a business decision. From the article, the viewers who think what Paul did was deplorable are calling out for more punishment, which Youtube has not done, so they are in-fact resisting the will of the masses here. > I think there is a second problem that actually might be bigger. Intolerance for mistakes. I do get what you're saying, but per the article and per Logan Paul's history with his videos and audience, his fame comes from constantly pushing the envelope with outlandish behavior. It's part of his character and also what attracts people to him, but it should be expected that he also sets his own limits and boundaries. There's not really a way in light of his popularity and work with Youtube that he could have not known about the policy on such video content, and even if he did, ignorance is not an excuse in this case. Logan Paul is receiving a penalty for bad judgement and violating Youtube rules; he's not the victim of mob mentality, he's the victim of Advertisers wanting a sanitized advertising platform. If he made a mistake in earnest, then I hope he learns well from it and grows as a video maker, using this as a learning experience from which he recovers. Nothing Youtube has said so far though has made it out to be that this is some irreparable situation, it's a penalty for violating the Youtube Guidelines. If Logan Paul is contrite, he will recover.

ghostcluster 9y ago
> Logan Paul is receiving a penalty for bad judgement and violating Youtube rules; he's not the victim of mob mentality, He's receiving punishment because of the mob mentality. The platform had the video in question on their highly curated Trending page before he pulled it. Whether some accountability was necessary is secondary to the fact that he is now in the sights of a huge morally righteous outrage mob. And I'm with the OP that it seems like society runs in a mode now where mob retribution is not satisfied until it the retribution is absolute.
- csydas 9y ago
  > He's receiving punishment because of the mob mentality. I'm afraid history doesn't really agree with you - the entire "Adpocalypse" was advertiser driven, not user driven. Users had been complaining about horrible videos on Youtube for years and the videos continued to be monetized and Youtube didn't care. Ad revenue and results were not trending down, Advertisers just wanted more control, and Youtube gave it to them. And I take issue with the idea of the Trending Page being highly curated because it's clearly algorithmic, not manually managed. The countless videos on the subject, as well as Quora discussions strongly suggest that it's decided by algorithm, not by individuals. I get that you're frustrated with how people respond to certain topics in modern society, but the action from Youtube is pretty even handed by any metric. Logan Paul is _not_ banned from Youtube, he's not banned from monetizing, he's simply been removed from a specific level of partnership in Youtube for violating a rule that Youtube has had for a long time and for going against Advertiser wishes. Again, he should know better - he's made a mistake, he's receiving a punishment. If he is contrite, he will recover; he seems to have what it takes to be successful on Youtube. This time he just went too far.
  - Freestyler_3 9y ago
    > the entire "Adpocalypse" was advertiser driven, not user driven. You really think add companies cared that much? They only started caring because there were users going after them for advertising on such videos. In some cases I understand, like the videos that are aimed at kids but they are pretty bad. And the scammers.
    - supreme_sublime 9y ago
      What I find strange is, there isn't any evidence for long term association of an ad with the content of the video. If you see a coca cola commercial before an ISIS beheading video, do you really think "Huh, coca cola is sponsoring ISIS now"? It is a ridiculous jump to leap to. The research also doesn't back it up, there seems to be a short term association, but definitely nothing long term. The problem is YouTube doesn't want to operate at a loss, they are trying to get more advertisers to the platform so they can make more money. To bring more advertisers to the platform, they are attempting to get advertisers to pick and choose what kind of content their ads show around. Instead of just allowing them to target the user and whatever demographics/interests they may have based on their viewing history. I find it really strange for a company hemorrhaging money to actively be showing fewer ads, considering they make money on those ads as well. The users causing a fuss were simply leverage for the ad companies to remind YouTube who is boss. For some reason YouTube thinks they don't have any kind of leverage of their own. Of course they aren't profitable, but they also have a massive user base. It seems like a strategic mistake to me. They are pushing content creators off the platform, which will push down their user count and push down the amount of people they can advertise to. I'm not a business or marketing guy, but I would have simply said "We try to remove videos that violate our TOS as quickly as possible, all other videos the creators want to make money from, we show ads on. Our ads are targeted to users, not based on the specific video they happen to be watching."
mbrumlow 9y ago
I feel like my first point still stands. It does not matter that the advertisers pulled, it matters why they pulled. If it was not based on actual business impact but the threatening offended then it is a problem. Unfortunately the only way for them to know would to have not pulled. Also I don't see how YouTube RED dropping him has your do with advertisers. He still has a channel right ? He still is able to make new videos ? But you bring up a real good topic. You claim the advertisers want a sanitized platform. Does it not bother you that these people have basically hijacked YouTube and have any say in the content you get to view ? Also I am not really trying to defend this guy. I am mostly questioning how what is often a vocal offended outraged minority of people seem to have more power than they should. So if YouTube or an advertiser made any decisions not directly off raw numbers then it bothers me. If the market -- that means views -- goes down because people cared enough to stop watching then it is a win win. Advertisers won't pay because of less views. My argument is based on the notion that YouTube stands to loose more by penalizing him, the same goes for advertisers in lost impressions.
- csydas 9y ago
  > Unfortunately the only way for them to know would to have not pulled. Well, I think the video popularity even before hand is proof enough that the mob still liked it. People still flocked to Paul's channel, and probably will continue to do so. IIRC, he even saw an uptick in subscribers, but that may be a mistake on my part. The part I take issue with mostly is people saying that overly sensitive people got it taken down, when really it's just that overly anal Advertisers worried about the effect on their investment and brand image. That's a business decision which I'm sure is backed by pretty cold hard numbers. > Does it not bother you that these people have basically hijacked YouTube and have any say in the content you get to view ? As I try not to use Youtube at all, no, not really. Like, fundamentally I agree with you that pervasive Advertising is bad for society as a whole, but what happens to Youtube isn't really my concern, as Youtube/Google demonstrated long ago where their loyalties were, and I made peace with that. My response is not to say I approve of Advertisers having this much control - I think it's ridiculous. But my response is to empower the few artists I like using other funding means and to avoid Youtube. The loss of one viewer hopefully is off-set by the $5 a month. > YouTube stands to loose more by penalizing him, the same goes for advertisers in lost impressions. Well, I would have to imagine that based on the drama around the Adpocalypse and that Youtube has doubled-down on it instead of walking it back, Youtube and Advertisers are in agreement that the changes have been for the better, not for the worse.

by csydas 9y ago

ghostcluster 9y ago

> Logan Paul is receiving a penalty for bad judgement and violating Youtube rules; he's not the victim of mob mentality, He's receiving punishment because of the mob mentality. The platform had the video in question on their highly curated Trending page before he pulled it. Whether some accountability was necessary is secondary to the fact that he is now in the sights of a huge morally righteous outrage mob. And I'm with the OP that it seems like society runs in a mode now where mob retribution is not satisfied until it the retribution is absolute.

csydas 9y ago
> He's receiving punishment because of the mob mentality. I'm afraid history doesn't really agree with you - the entire "Adpocalypse" was advertiser driven, not user driven. Users had been complaining about horrible videos on Youtube for years and the videos continued to be monetized and Youtube didn't care. Ad revenue and results were not trending down, Advertisers just wanted more control, and Youtube gave it to them. And I take issue with the idea of the Trending Page being highly curated because it's clearly algorithmic, not manually managed. The countless videos on the subject, as well as Quora discussions strongly suggest that it's decided by algorithm, not by individuals. I get that you're frustrated with how people respond to certain topics in modern society, but the action from Youtube is pretty even handed by any metric. Logan Paul is _not_ banned from Youtube, he's not banned from monetizing, he's simply been removed from a specific level of partnership in Youtube for violating a rule that Youtube has had for a long time and for going against Advertiser wishes. Again, he should know better - he's made a mistake, he's receiving a punishment. If he is contrite, he will recover; he seems to have what it takes to be successful on Youtube. This time he just went too far.
- Freestyler_3 9y ago
  > the entire "Adpocalypse" was advertiser driven, not user driven. You really think add companies cared that much? They only started caring because there were users going after them for advertising on such videos. In some cases I understand, like the videos that are aimed at kids but they are pretty bad. And the scammers.
  - supreme_sublime 9y ago
    What I find strange is, there isn't any evidence for long term association of an ad with the content of the video. If you see a coca cola commercial before an ISIS beheading video, do you really think "Huh, coca cola is sponsoring ISIS now"? It is a ridiculous jump to leap to. The research also doesn't back it up, there seems to be a short term association, but definitely nothing long term. The problem is YouTube doesn't want to operate at a loss, they are trying to get more advertisers to the platform so they can make more money. To bring more advertisers to the platform, they are attempting to get advertisers to pick and choose what kind of content their ads show around. Instead of just allowing them to target the user and whatever demographics/interests they may have based on their viewing history. I find it really strange for a company hemorrhaging money to actively be showing fewer ads, considering they make money on those ads as well. The users causing a fuss were simply leverage for the ad companies to remind YouTube who is boss. For some reason YouTube thinks they don't have any kind of leverage of their own. Of course they aren't profitable, but they also have a massive user base. It seems like a strategic mistake to me. They are pushing content creators off the platform, which will push down their user count and push down the amount of people they can advertise to. I'm not a business or marketing guy, but I would have simply said "We try to remove videos that violate our TOS as quickly as possible, all other videos the creators want to make money from, we show ads on. Our ads are targeted to users, not based on the specific video they happen to be watching."

mbrumlow 9y ago

I feel like my first point still stands. It does not matter that the advertisers pulled, it matters why they pulled. If it was not based on actual business impact but the threatening offended then it is a problem. Unfortunately the only way for them to know would to have not pulled. Also I don't see how YouTube RED dropping him has your do with advertisers. He still has a channel right ? He still is able to make new videos ? But you bring up a real good topic. You claim the advertisers want a sanitized platform. Does it not bother you that these people have basically hijacked YouTube and have any say in the content you get to view ? Also I am not really trying to defend this guy. I am mostly questioning how what is often a vocal offended outraged minority of people seem to have more power than they should. So if YouTube or an advertiser made any decisions not directly off raw numbers then it bothers me. If the market -- that means views -- goes down because people cared enough to stop watching then it is a win win. Advertisers won't pay because of less views. My argument is based on the notion that YouTube stands to loose more by penalizing him, the same goes for advertisers in lost impressions.

csydas 9y ago
> Unfortunately the only way for them to know would to have not pulled. Well, I think the video popularity even before hand is proof enough that the mob still liked it. People still flocked to Paul's channel, and probably will continue to do so. IIRC, he even saw an uptick in subscribers, but that may be a mistake on my part. The part I take issue with mostly is people saying that overly sensitive people got it taken down, when really it's just that overly anal Advertisers worried about the effect on their investment and brand image. That's a business decision which I'm sure is backed by pretty cold hard numbers. > Does it not bother you that these people have basically hijacked YouTube and have any say in the content you get to view ? As I try not to use Youtube at all, no, not really. Like, fundamentally I agree with you that pervasive Advertising is bad for society as a whole, but what happens to Youtube isn't really my concern, as Youtube/Google demonstrated long ago where their loyalties were, and I made peace with that. My response is not to say I approve of Advertisers having this much control - I think it's ridiculous. But my response is to empower the few artists I like using other funding means and to avoid Youtube. The loss of one viewer hopefully is off-set by the $5 a month. > YouTube stands to loose more by penalizing him, the same goes for advertisers in lost impressions. Well, I would have to imagine that based on the drama around the Adpocalypse and that Youtube has doubled-down on it instead of walking it back, Youtube and Advertisers are in agreement that the changes have been for the better, not for the worse.