3 ms·

attracting too many of them is a great way to make no one else want to come to your platform Perhaps that's a feature and not a bug. After all, judging by the

attracting too many of them is a great way to make no one else want to come to your platform Perhaps that's a feature and not a bug. After all, judging by the last US election such people are in a slight minority anyway. And why is YouTube whacking those channels specifically - because left wing social justice types systematically try to wipe out conservative thought wherever they find it. It's a private sector form of the behavior communist countries always see. Do you want those people following you to the next place you host your videos? Or would you rather leave them to sit and stew in their nicely whitewashed PC groupthink? I think the real issue with your idea is that revenue streams from ads aren't that large, and anyway, advertisers are extremely sensitive to being targeted by witch hunts, which is why you see left wingers engage in so many of them against advertisers. I'd leave video authors to arrange for their own sponsorships; they can surely do it if the right messaging framework is in place.

adrusi 9y ago
There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong committment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches. So while some small percent of Reddit’s average users moved over, a very large percent of its witches did. Sometimes the witchcraft was nothing worse than questioning Reddit’s political consensus. Other times, it was harassment, hate groups, and creepy porn. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali... When one platform (youtube) starts banning/demonetizing certain people, and you create a new platform that guarantees free expression, that new platform is going to get swarmed by the people who were banned by the incumbent platform. If YouTube's methid of selecting people be banned/demonetized is reasonably in line with what the average viewer dislikes (no necessarily what they would want banned), then when the new platform gets flooded with content from those banned from YouTube, the average viewer will find little to like on the platform. Many people made their living off of YouTube ad revenue. Still do. You might be right that it's not the best source of income for the typical producer. However, right now, a lot of producers are angry at YouTube for their changes to their ad policy. Now's the time to drive a large number of big content producers off of YouTube and onto your new platform, because they are actively searching for a new one. But they're motivated by the loss of their ad revenue, so they're not going to be interested in a platform that doesn't pay out ad revenue at all, that doesn't address their concerns.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

adrusi 9y ago

There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong committment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches. So while some small percent of Reddit’s average users moved over, a very large percent of its witches did. Sometimes the witchcraft was nothing worse than questioning Reddit’s political consensus. Other times, it was harassment, hate groups, and creepy porn. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali... When one platform (youtube) starts banning/demonetizing certain people, and you create a new platform that guarantees free expression, that new platform is going to get swarmed by the people who were banned by the incumbent platform. If YouTube's methid of selecting people be banned/demonetized is reasonably in line with what the average viewer dislikes (no necessarily what they would want banned), then when the new platform gets flooded with content from those banned from YouTube, the average viewer will find little to like on the platform. Many people made their living off of YouTube ad revenue. Still do. You might be right that it's not the best source of income for the typical producer. However, right now, a lot of producers are angry at YouTube for their changes to their ad policy. Now's the time to drive a large number of big content producers off of YouTube and onto your new platform, because they are actively searching for a new one. But they're motivated by the loss of their ad revenue, so they're not going to be interested in a platform that doesn't pay out ad revenue at all, that doesn't address their concerns.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]