4 ms·

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 impa

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.
- mbrumlow 9y ago
  It's late and I am sick so my reply will be short. Not for lack of words or things to say. Just might sleep better knowing you had a chance to see this. I did not mean to imply you approve with advertisers having this sort of control. It was a question of inquiry on a topic that I had not thought much about. Something we have more common ground on apparently.
  - csydas 9y ago
    No worries, I'm at work anyways. I think we do agree on a lot with regards to advertisers. In this instance, we disagree on the impetus for YouTube to punish Logan Paul, but effectively dislike the situation in general. I think that YouTube failed to be what it should, and a Logan Paul style account is symptomatic of the problems of YouTube, but that's unrelated. Feel better! )

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.

mbrumlow 9y ago
It's late and I am sick so my reply will be short. Not for lack of words or things to say. Just might sleep better knowing you had a chance to see this. I did not mean to imply you approve with advertisers having this sort of control. It was a question of inquiry on a topic that I had not thought much about. Something we have more common ground on apparently.
- csydas 9y ago
  No worries, I'm at work anyways. I think we do agree on a lot with regards to advertisers. In this instance, we disagree on the impetus for YouTube to punish Logan Paul, but effectively dislike the situation in general. I think that YouTube failed to be what it should, and a Logan Paul style account is symptomatic of the problems of YouTube, but that's unrelated. Feel better! )