3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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."
    - Freestyler_3 9y ago
      That makes sense. Apparently there are videos that they just can't take down with their TOS, but that they want advertisers to have the option not to advertise there. Its a service that sells less advertisements and makes creators shift away from youtube. A lose lose lose situation in the long run. Also seeing youtube as the future of tv... I don't think so.
      - supreme_sublime 9y ago
        Yes, they have a "demonetized" status for videos that don't violate their TOS but aren't "advertiser friendly". Their general lack of transparency about it is also quite annoying. There also does seem to be some kind of manual process going on which is very strange. I have a small anecdote about it, unfortunately the creator took down the video talking about it after the problem was resolved or I'd just link that. I'll try to summarize as best I can. There is a channel I watch, called "Counter Arguments", it is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. He made a video a while back called "Punch a Nazi"[0]. Some weeks after it being up, he got it taken down as violating the TOS for promoting violence. I don't believe he actually attempted to get it reviewed and put back up. The funny thing about the video is it is a video that is ultimately against political violence and he puts clips from a couple other videos in it that actually do promote violence. Those videos were never taken down. He posted a video about what happened to the video because people were asking him about it. A few days after posting the video about it, the video was put back up. I believe it may be demonetized, but I'm not sure. He seems to have scrubbed the videos discussing it from his channel. We have no way of knowing if it was a manual or automated action that caused the video to go down, nor if it was a manual or automated action to get it put back up. The timing of it, sounds to me like it may have been flagged, a YouTube employee looked at it and didn't like what it said, so took it down. Potentially another YouTube employee saw the other video about it being taken down and put it back up. We have no way of knowing. I think if he would have never made another video about it being taken down, it likely would still be down today. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XtQ1BVhcOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XtQ1BVhcOk
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  The Adpocalypse was driven by activist journalists at the Wall Street Journal and other outlets, who contacted brands to tell them they were writing a scandal story before they even published it. The outrage was not organic, but driven by established media organizations also reliant on the same advertising revenue.
Freestyler_3 9y ago
Exactly, so much overreacting to something you can simply choose not to watch. People getting so offended someone put a video up, they will call the advertisers and complain about how their add is showing in a offensive video. And then there is the punishment, it never is enough. The person must be completely destroyed. I think that happens because in the angry mob every one wants retribution for themselves. (for example, you murder someone. You get arrested and go to court. There you get sentenced 5 years for each relative and friend the victim had, instead of getting the sentence for murder)
- DanBC 9y ago
  > People getting so offended someone put a video up, they will call the advertisers and complain about how their add is showing in a offensive video. But this is capitalism. Bob can say what he likes, but I don't have to pay him to say it. If the money I spend buying products is then given to Bob in advertising I'm free to chose a company who doesn't advertise with Bob. And when I tell those companies why I no longer buy their products I'm using freedom of speech - the same freedom of speech that Bob claims to care so much about.

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."
  - Freestyler_3 9y ago
    That makes sense. Apparently there are videos that they just can't take down with their TOS, but that they want advertisers to have the option not to advertise there. Its a service that sells less advertisements and makes creators shift away from youtube. A lose lose lose situation in the long run. Also seeing youtube as the future of tv... I don't think so.
    - supreme_sublime 9y ago
      Yes, they have a "demonetized" status for videos that don't violate their TOS but aren't "advertiser friendly". Their general lack of transparency about it is also quite annoying. There also does seem to be some kind of manual process going on which is very strange. I have a small anecdote about it, unfortunately the creator took down the video talking about it after the problem was resolved or I'd just link that. I'll try to summarize as best I can. There is a channel I watch, called "Counter Arguments", it is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. He made a video a while back called "Punch a Nazi"[0]. Some weeks after it being up, he got it taken down as violating the TOS for promoting violence. I don't believe he actually attempted to get it reviewed and put back up. The funny thing about the video is it is a video that is ultimately against political violence and he puts clips from a couple other videos in it that actually do promote violence. Those videos were never taken down. He posted a video about what happened to the video because people were asking him about it. A few days after posting the video about it, the video was put back up. I believe it may be demonetized, but I'm not sure. He seems to have scrubbed the videos discussing it from his channel. We have no way of knowing if it was a manual or automated action that caused the video to go down, nor if it was a manual or automated action to get it put back up. The timing of it, sounds to me like it may have been flagged, a YouTube employee looked at it and didn't like what it said, so took it down. Potentially another YouTube employee saw the other video about it being taken down and put it back up. We have no way of knowing. I think if he would have never made another video about it being taken down, it likely would still be down today. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XtQ1BVhcOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XtQ1BVhcOk
ghostcluster 9y ago
The Adpocalypse was driven by activist journalists at the Wall Street Journal and other outlets, who contacted brands to tell them they were writing a scandal story before they even published it. The outrage was not organic, but driven by established media organizations also reliant on the same advertising revenue.

Freestyler_3 9y ago

Exactly, so much overreacting to something you can simply choose not to watch. People getting so offended someone put a video up, they will call the advertisers and complain about how their add is showing in a offensive video. And then there is the punishment, it never is enough. The person must be completely destroyed. I think that happens because in the angry mob every one wants retribution for themselves. (for example, you murder someone. You get arrested and go to court. There you get sentenced 5 years for each relative and friend the victim had, instead of getting the sentence for murder)

DanBC 9y ago
> People getting so offended someone put a video up, they will call the advertisers and complain about how their add is showing in a offensive video. But this is capitalism. Bob can say what he likes, but I don't have to pay him to say it. If the money I spend buying products is then given to Bob in advertising I'm free to chose a company who doesn't advertise with Bob. And when I tell those companies why I no longer buy their products I'm using freedom of speech - the same freedom of speech that Bob claims to care so much about.