> 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

> 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.