4 ms·

I'm not sure that it's an area where YT is failing, as this subject has no winning scenario. If they put restrictions on a sensitive subject, a part of the pop

I'm not sure that it's an area where YT is failing, as this subject has no winning scenario. If they put restrictions on a sensitive subject, a part of the population is going to complain; if they don't, the other part will. If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits. I think this is implicit in content providers with extremely large audiences, and it's quite difficult (and interesting) to assess what is failure and what success, from a business perspective.

legitster 9y ago
Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything. So it was kind of lose-lose. People against guns didn't really care, and people who like guns are pissed.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything Advertisers have been asking Google to do something about the the content youtube plays in videos their ads play against for a while now (not just restricted to guns). If the people who like guns are losing Google money and are a political liability in the aftermath of Parklands - well, this is what happens.
clarkmoody 9y ago
The thing about the gun-related stuff is that it's 99% perfectly legal (yes, there are videos about illegal mods, but those were not specifically targeted). I don't think they're worried about lawsuits. This is all about political optics.
- weego 9y ago
  I think it's also about those channels not being suitable to advertise on / having a bad demographic to advertise to and them being funded by patreons or private shop backers advertising in-video. YT gets very little revenue from that even though they are high-volume channels so it's just a pure cost cutting exercise.
  - deelowe 9y ago
    I don't buy it. Cabellas and Bass Pro make a killing. There are plenty of companies out there willing to cater to this market. This is nothing more than a Silicon Valley political thing.
  - daxorid 9y ago
    > having a bad demographic to advertise to I don't follow. A full 31% of the US population, most of whom have sufficient disposable income to blow $600-$2000 on a piece of steel and polymer. How is that a bad demographic to advertise to?
- leot 9y ago
  So are porn videos. So are snuff videos. How do you propose YouTube draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable? Because legal/illegal isn't going to work here.
major505 9y ago
Youtube is a private company, and may as well ban all content that they don't like. But nothing of this wold be an issue, if they stop being brick heads, and made a better algorithm to distribute their ads, it would never be am issue. Just ask your sponsors what kind of content they don't want to be associated, and then just don't show this ads in channels with this subjects. There, eberyboth is happy. Now for gun related content, I really don't whatch in youtube anymore, since the creators don't receive money in there. So I just watch in sites like Full30. The problem, is that a lot a good channels today, are only in youtube, like C&R arsenal, who is currentlly doing an amazing WWI guns history in great detail.
- mbrumlow 9y ago
  I had typed a whole post but you replied first so I would like to continue on the whole 'Youtube is a private company' issue. For me this is becoming more and more of an issue. I don't know if I have a good solution for it, or if the analogies running around in my head match up well. But the crux of the issue is that internet companies offering very very very public services are hiding behind being a private company when making any sort of decisions on this sort of level. To me, they are offing a way for people to do mass communication, to a unspecified and in some cases a specified group or list of people. Lets play with some analogies for a bit. What if AT&T released a memo that you were no longer able to talk about, guns, or any of the other things on this ban list? People would be freaking out. Same goes if your email provider all the sudden said you can't have a gun related mailing list. The point I am making is while Youtube is a public company they are more of a utility the net society. They do not create the content, they only host and serve it. So they should on be allowed to follow the laws on the books -- and maybe even the same laws that the FCC already imposes on radio and tv broadcast for any video that is public - without paid subscription (much like how cable works, but some mechanics likely need to be worked out there). Anyway this is just a thought, but I feel strongly that Youtube or any other service that provides public hosting of any content -- no mater how it is monetized -- should only be allowed to restrict content that is illegal to start off with. On the other hand if they start limiting what can and can't be hosted then I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law every time illegal content is found on their systems. A sort of check and balance system. Either they are responsible, or they are not responsible, they can't have it both ways.
ballenf 9y ago
> If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits. Is there any serious group of people advocating lawsuits against platforms that allow videos about guns? In the US?

legitster 9y ago

Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything. So it was kind of lose-lose. People against guns didn't really care, and people who like guns are pissed.

sangnoir 9y ago
> Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything Advertisers have been asking Google to do something about the the content youtube plays in videos their ads play against for a while now (not just restricted to guns). If the people who like guns are losing Google money and are a political liability in the aftermath of Parklands - well, this is what happens.

clarkmoody 9y ago

The thing about the gun-related stuff is that it's 99% perfectly legal (yes, there are videos about illegal mods, but those were not specifically targeted). I don't think they're worried about lawsuits. This is all about political optics.

weego 9y ago
I think it's also about those channels not being suitable to advertise on / having a bad demographic to advertise to and them being funded by patreons or private shop backers advertising in-video. YT gets very little revenue from that even though they are high-volume channels so it's just a pure cost cutting exercise.
- deelowe 9y ago
  I don't buy it. Cabellas and Bass Pro make a killing. There are plenty of companies out there willing to cater to this market. This is nothing more than a Silicon Valley political thing.
- daxorid 9y ago
  > having a bad demographic to advertise to I don't follow. A full 31% of the US population, most of whom have sufficient disposable income to blow $600-$2000 on a piece of steel and polymer. How is that a bad demographic to advertise to?
leot 9y ago
So are porn videos. So are snuff videos. How do you propose YouTube draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable? Because legal/illegal isn't going to work here.

major505 9y ago

Youtube is a private company, and may as well ban all content that they don't like. But nothing of this wold be an issue, if they stop being brick heads, and made a better algorithm to distribute their ads, it would never be am issue. Just ask your sponsors what kind of content they don't want to be associated, and then just don't show this ads in channels with this subjects. There, eberyboth is happy. Now for gun related content, I really don't whatch in youtube anymore, since the creators don't receive money in there. So I just watch in sites like Full30. The problem, is that a lot a good channels today, are only in youtube, like C&R arsenal, who is currentlly doing an amazing WWI guns history in great detail.

mbrumlow 9y ago
I had typed a whole post but you replied first so I would like to continue on the whole 'Youtube is a private company' issue. For me this is becoming more and more of an issue. I don't know if I have a good solution for it, or if the analogies running around in my head match up well. But the crux of the issue is that internet companies offering very very very public services are hiding behind being a private company when making any sort of decisions on this sort of level. To me, they are offing a way for people to do mass communication, to a unspecified and in some cases a specified group or list of people. Lets play with some analogies for a bit. What if AT&T released a memo that you were no longer able to talk about, guns, or any of the other things on this ban list? People would be freaking out. Same goes if your email provider all the sudden said you can't have a gun related mailing list. The point I am making is while Youtube is a public company they are more of a utility the net society. They do not create the content, they only host and serve it. So they should on be allowed to follow the laws on the books -- and maybe even the same laws that the FCC already imposes on radio and tv broadcast for any video that is public - without paid subscription (much like how cable works, but some mechanics likely need to be worked out there). Anyway this is just a thought, but I feel strongly that Youtube or any other service that provides public hosting of any content -- no mater how it is monetized -- should only be allowed to restrict content that is illegal to start off with. On the other hand if they start limiting what can and can't be hosted then I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law every time illegal content is found on their systems. A sort of check and balance system. Either they are responsible, or they are not responsible, they can't have it both ways.

ballenf 9y ago

> If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits. Is there any serious group of people advocating lawsuits against platforms that allow videos about guns? In the US?