6 ms·

This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind. Everyone is acting in their best interests, and in many cases are acting benevolently, but the outcome is st

This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind. Everyone is acting in their best interests, and in many cases are acting benevolently, but the outcome is still awful. Obviously YouTube is going to cave to advertiser pressure and start to restrict what videos can have ads, their whole existence depends on it, and if I worked at YouTube i'd see demonetizing some videos as a welcome alternative to closing the whole thing down. I don't blame the advertisers one bit from wanting to remove their ads from many videos. Once the media starts playing the game that "an ad on the video == the advertiser agrees with the message" I too would want to do everything I can to ensure that I'm not associated with bad things. Media outlets are (in many cases) just trying to report on things. They are (correctly) pointing out how many users and creators are upset with YouTube's moves in this case, and how many advertisers are upset about being associated with "bad" videos. Obviously there are things that each group can do better (YouTube could stand up to the Advertisers a bit more, Advertisers could push back on the notion that "an ad == approval", and the media could stop trying to "stir up" controversy), but in each case the thing that is better for society is worse for that group (at least in the short term). I can absolutely see an alternate universe where people are boycotting Coke because they allow their ads to run on gun videos, or where YouTube ends up losing out to even more money because they won't enact more strict rules about which videos can have ads. I don't know the answer here, but it's obvious that the current "solutions" aren't working.

DanAndersen 9y ago
Scott Alexander's essay "Meditations on Moloch" is relevant here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ The no-win situation you describe is a prime example of "Moloch."
- hvass 9y ago
  This is fantastic. Thanks for sharing.
ep103 9y ago
Everyone is acting in their best interest, except youtube. Youtube has a product team, its their job to come up with solutions to problems like these. If they haven't found a solution, they haven't done their job. Full stop.
- danso 9y ago
  What is the "solution" here? There is only mitigation, it's not a problem that could ever be completely solved to the satisfaction of all parties.
  - nailer 9y ago
    Agreed it can't be solved completely (like a lot of problems), but a non-binary monetisation option (ie, content tags, where advertisers pick tags they'd like to include/excluse) would be a hell of a lot better.
  - quickben 9y ago
    Foresight and planning. Don't tie to another's platform without expecting cutoffs (pagerank, YouTube, apple front page, amazon serverless , etc)
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    I reject any and all violence. The law of the land must take its course. This woman who talked about free speech and then committed this crime against YouTube has seriously set back the arguments people were making for Free Speech on Social Media. I have given this a lot of thought in past couple of years. Current situation: A) A video could get demonetized because of following reasons: 1. An advertiser complained about it. 2. A user complained about it. 3. The system/AI flagged it inappropriate. 4. A human auditor found it inappropriate. B) Media companies (print/television/online news & press) have targeted ad-tec companies like YouTube, Facebook and others. These companies have a new way to wage war against YouTube/Facebook: drum up "ads shown on objectionable content". C) Groups with agenda trying to silence opposing viewpoints have a way to do so by reporting content as inappropriate. D) Truly illegal, criminal content E) Lack of powerful parental controls on content and on ads Problem with current situation: 1. An advertiser finding a video objectionable for their ad doesn't mean every advertiser will find the content objectionable. E.g. an insurance company may not want to advertise on a video that glorifies extreme jumping over walls, building, but a helmet company or an action cam company would find it attractive market to advertise. When youtube demonetizes a video, it's demonetized period. 2. It is ridiculously easy to stop speech on social media by abusing the inappropriate content flag. Groups with agenda that have decent enough membership can run a very effective silencing campaign on social media by abusing the report-content button. Someone doesn't like some legal content, doesn't mean that they are allowed to take out that content from anyone else viewing it. 3. YouTube or Facebook doesn't have or offer a way fight the "ads shown on objectionable content" attacks. This is especially confusing given these are the tech giants we are talking about with the might of all the technology and AI powers they wield. 4. No human recourse for the content creator to plead their case. 5. Demonetizing political commentary is astonishing, given how much advertising CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and political print media gets. 6. Would it be OK if Conoco gas station stopped hybrid cars from refueling? Would it be OK if Conoco said why doesn't the hybrid car owner start her own oil well and oil refinery? Why is is acceptable for Google to delete accounts with thousands of subscribers? What if you had a Conoco points cards with hundreds of dollars on it? Isn't that equivalent to your channels membership that YouTube yanks away from you? Solution: 1. Allow advertisers to select channels to advertise on. Advertisers opt-in to select channels. 2. Allow advertisers to select channels to specifically not advertise on. Advertisers opt-out of select channels. 3. Protect creators from harassment by targeted campaigns ran by people trying to de-platform or silence them. Embrace bubbles, let people opt out of certain tags e.g. if a user says I don't like meat preparation videos, then don't show it to them. But don't make it easy for people who don't like meat products to deplatform those who do. 4. Apple can put people in front of their customers to serve them. Facebook/Google make enough money to have a customer facing team for their content creators. They have invested into hiring auditors but there is no recourse for creators. Channel being banned after having thousands of subscribers is akin to paypal locking your account with thousands of dollars in it. 5. Removing content should depend on legality (law of the land) of the content alone. Removal of account must be because of a lawful request from authorities. 6. "Demonetization" can't be blanket. Each advertiser is unique. One advertisers not liking content doesn't make it inappropriate for all advertisers. Protect creators from activist advertisers. 7. These are tech giants that we are talking about with the might of engineering and AI with them. Letting advertisers opt-in/opt-out of channels should be possible for them. The fact that they haven't done so insinuates that they like the power they wield by removing content they themselves don't like for whatever (monetary/ideological) reasons. They need to prove that they are can be trusted with this power. Conoco shouldn't be allowed to reject gas to a lawyer who is on her way to a courthouse for an EPA trial, Google shouldn't be allowed to remove accounts that it doesn't like, especially without recourse. A regulatory framework may be needed, as Zukerberg conceded recently. 8. Allow parents to whitelist channels for kids. Show videos to kids only after 1000+ views from parents who use parental controls. Allow parents to restrict the videos kids can see where parents set the video playlist and kids can pick only from that playlist. Parents can subscribe to a trusted playlist for kids e.g. from NPR or NASA or their local school, activity group or church. Absence of these tools shows YouTube willing to run videos on autoplay to maximize ads without much regards for age-appropriate parent-controlled safe video experience for kids. A parent should be able to say I don't want to see ads for Disney Cruise as they can't afford it. 9. Subscriber portability just like phone number portability from carrier to carrier. A content creator should be able to take his subscribers with her to a different service. The social network should show forwarding address to the subscribers when content creator leaves a platform for another. Bring real competition for social platforms. Disclaimer: I pay for YouTube Red, I like the ad-free experience and am glad that the option exists where I can buy that experience. I don't make, never have, any money based on the social media ad platforms. I am a consumer of content, not a creator. As a paying consumer of content, I do want complete freedom in my ability to see any legal content that others have created without an arbitrary filter of policy/guideline/appropriateness that has no basis in law of the land. I should have the ability to apply the filters if I choose to do so, just like marketplace of ideas there should be a marketplace for filters (whitelist/blacklist).
contravariant 9y ago
If you want to look at causes then I fear that it's not the monetization itself that's the problem but youtube's 'burned bridge' approach to communication. I've seen several people complain about the non-communicative stance YouTube has taken, leaving people with little to no ways of recourse. To me it seems likely that this person felt that this was the only way they could 'reach' YouTube.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  With 50 million channels it's impossible to give quality communication to everyone, so they prioritize based on size/viewership/ad dollars. Top creators have great communications channels - nobody's don't. It's not YouTube's responsibility to stroke everyone's fragile ego. The problem is people thinking they are more important than they are and then going to extreme lengths to make themselves relevant. That's what mass shooters are, people with egos that don't have the influence to match.
  - adnzzzzZ 9y ago
    >it's impossible to give quality communication to everyone This is wrong though. See Valve for a counter example. Steam is also run by algorithms but Valve has managed to give people tons of information on what their algorithms are doing at various points on their store ("this game was shown to you because of X, Y and Z", for instance). The communication problem that YouTube has can be solved by them improving their product and letting creators see more of what their algorithms are doing behind the scenes, like Valve did with Steam.
    - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      You can't compare communicating with users that are buying stuff (Steam customers) and communicating with paid creators (The 50M+ YouTube Channel content creators). It's a completely different set of questions/answers and a completely different relationship.
      - 9y ago
humanrebar 9y ago
> This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind. We'll, people can just understand the algorithms are flawed and not blame the advertisers for having an ad for toilet paper next to an video of someone TPing a house.
- nailer 9y ago
  Discussed this in the other thread, but there's nothing stopping YouTube from doing a video tagging system and making creators tag their works. Softly (the toilet paper brand) simply deselects 'pranks' as a tag to advertise on.
leshow 9y ago
> I don't blame the advertisers one bit from wanting to remove their ads from many videos. Once the media starts playing the game that "an ad on the video == the advertiser agrees with the message" I too would want to do everything I can to ensure that I'm not associated with bad things. Why do we do that on youtube when we don't do that on TV? Do we assume that if you're ad runs during <some sitcom> you agree with the jokes in it?
- Kylekramer 9y ago
  Happens on TV relatively often. Bill O'Reilly got the boot because advertisers pulled their ads after he got caught up in sexual harassment claims. TV just has also built up years of trust with advertisers and have legal departments reviewing all their content while YouTube was throwing up ads in front of ISIS recruitment videos.
  - leshow 9y ago
    You're probably right, I don't watch cable TV so it was a poor comparison. Nobody is complaining that ISIS is losing their youtube ad revenue stream, that's a strawman argument. ISIS recruitment videos violate youtube's guidelines so they'd just be taken down, that's not what we're talking about here. What's actually happening is videos that have a dissenting or unpopular viewpoint have their ads removed, with a lot of harmless content caught in the crossfire due to the indiscriminate nature of youtube's algorithms.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  This happens pretty often, currently other media outlets are pressuring advertisers to pull support from Laura Ingraham and effectively de-monetize the show. That's just the latest example though. Also, the FCC regulates broadcast TV and commercials. you can't simply run an obscene advertisement just because the station and/or station's audience approves it.
- DanAndersen 9y ago
  >Why do we do that on youtube when we don't do that on TV? Our society does do that on TV and radio. Consider the recent boycott attempts against Laura Ingraham: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott_in_support_of_David_Hogg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott_in_support_of_David_Ho... >Do we assume that if you're ad runs during <some sitcom> you agree with the jokes in it? I don't think most people actually assume that the advertiser literally agrees with all the content they are running ads on. Rather, I think that people have found that it's an effective ideological weapon. Going after the advertisers to attack content is a tactic that works. The attackers don't have to literally think that the advertisers are morally signing on with the content, they just have to think that enough people out there think that, and that the advertisers are risk-averse to bend the knee, that it's a useful tactic.
dspillett 9y ago
> Media outlets are (in many cases) just trying to report on things. I would be more guarded and say in some cases. The previous comment's accusation that "mainstream" media, televisual, radio, & written, is stoking the anti-youtube sentiment has legs to stand on. Self publishing and social media are their competition and as they are getting desperate they are playing dirty. This is true of both the big players and some collectives of small players (which like those in the Sinclair Broadcast Group are effectively one big player as the individual outles have to tow the corporate line). The hope that moving bits of advertising budgets away from online outlets will mean that some of it comes back their way. Of course this doesn't in any way make them culpable for the events at youtube's offices this week. Similarly while youtube's terrible user support (which I'm told is very much in keeping with Google's apparent policy of "like we give a fuck about individuals"), while it may have increased her ire, can't be considered even partly responsible either. The woman obviously had issues, and they were going to blow up in someone's face sooner or later if not treated. I can't pretend I have an answer, as it is a very complex issue, but a key part of the problem is the lack of support available for those with mental problems, and the lack of ways to protect the rest of society from the fallout when something pushes people over the edge. Lack of gun control is also part of the problem too IMO (sure she could have attacked with a knife instead, but knife attacks are generally less deadly).
pjc50 9y ago
> Advertisers could push back on the notion that "an ad == approval" Ads are far more than just "approval", they're funding. An ad appearing with a video is funding the production of more, similar videos. It's quite meaningless to "boycott" a service that you're not paying money for, but people recognise that the modern flow of money around the economy is extremely indirect. This results in a lack of moral accountability. Campaigners aim to collapse the distance between those spending the money and the actual actions that result, to say "are you really happy paying for this to happen?"
mitchdoogle 9y ago
I don't understand why it's a problem at all. Can't YouTube enact settings for advertisers to choose which videos they want to advertise on. Some of the obvious things to filter could be video category, view count, number of likes/dislikes, comments. Instead of demonetizing channels, they could tag them controversial and allow advertisers to say they don't want to advertise on controversial channels. Seems a lot better than a blanket ban on advertisements.
- londons_explore 9y ago
  In many cases, the advertiser doesn't have direct control over their ad placement. You're thinking the marketing manager at Coke clicking buttons in an admin panel on youtube. The reality is 3 layers of management inside Coke, 2 external advertising agencies, a brand management company, ad aggregators and 3rd party ad exchanges and resellers, video networks, then youtube. When the boss at coke sees an ad next to dubious content, it's much easier for them to say "don't advertise on youtube" than "switch this special setting on youtube to avoid controversial channels". Youtube is taking the "safe" approach by not allowing such advertising at all.

DanAndersen 9y ago

Scott Alexander's essay "Meditations on Moloch" is relevant here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ The no-win situation you describe is a prime example of "Moloch."

hvass 9y ago
This is fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

ep103 9y ago

Everyone is acting in their best interest, except youtube. Youtube has a product team, its their job to come up with solutions to problems like these. If they haven't found a solution, they haven't done their job. Full stop.

danso 9y ago
What is the "solution" here? There is only mitigation, it's not a problem that could ever be completely solved to the satisfaction of all parties.
- nailer 9y ago
  Agreed it can't be solved completely (like a lot of problems), but a non-binary monetisation option (ie, content tags, where advertisers pick tags they'd like to include/excluse) would be a hell of a lot better.
- quickben 9y ago
  Foresight and planning. Don't tie to another's platform without expecting cutoffs (pagerank, YouTube, apple front page, amazon serverless , etc)
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  I reject any and all violence. The law of the land must take its course. This woman who talked about free speech and then committed this crime against YouTube has seriously set back the arguments people were making for Free Speech on Social Media. I have given this a lot of thought in past couple of years. Current situation: A) A video could get demonetized because of following reasons: 1. An advertiser complained about it. 2. A user complained about it. 3. The system/AI flagged it inappropriate. 4. A human auditor found it inappropriate. B) Media companies (print/television/online news & press) have targeted ad-tec companies like YouTube, Facebook and others. These companies have a new way to wage war against YouTube/Facebook: drum up "ads shown on objectionable content". C) Groups with agenda trying to silence opposing viewpoints have a way to do so by reporting content as inappropriate. D) Truly illegal, criminal content E) Lack of powerful parental controls on content and on ads Problem with current situation: 1. An advertiser finding a video objectionable for their ad doesn't mean every advertiser will find the content objectionable. E.g. an insurance company may not want to advertise on a video that glorifies extreme jumping over walls, building, but a helmet company or an action cam company would find it attractive market to advertise. When youtube demonetizes a video, it's demonetized period. 2. It is ridiculously easy to stop speech on social media by abusing the inappropriate content flag. Groups with agenda that have decent enough membership can run a very effective silencing campaign on social media by abusing the report-content button. Someone doesn't like some legal content, doesn't mean that they are allowed to take out that content from anyone else viewing it. 3. YouTube or Facebook doesn't have or offer a way fight the "ads shown on objectionable content" attacks. This is especially confusing given these are the tech giants we are talking about with the might of all the technology and AI powers they wield. 4. No human recourse for the content creator to plead their case. 5. Demonetizing political commentary is astonishing, given how much advertising CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and political print media gets. 6. Would it be OK if Conoco gas station stopped hybrid cars from refueling? Would it be OK if Conoco said why doesn't the hybrid car owner start her own oil well and oil refinery? Why is is acceptable for Google to delete accounts with thousands of subscribers? What if you had a Conoco points cards with hundreds of dollars on it? Isn't that equivalent to your channels membership that YouTube yanks away from you? Solution: 1. Allow advertisers to select channels to advertise on. Advertisers opt-in to select channels. 2. Allow advertisers to select channels to specifically not advertise on. Advertisers opt-out of select channels. 3. Protect creators from harassment by targeted campaigns ran by people trying to de-platform or silence them. Embrace bubbles, let people opt out of certain tags e.g. if a user says I don't like meat preparation videos, then don't show it to them. But don't make it easy for people who don't like meat products to deplatform those who do. 4. Apple can put people in front of their customers to serve them. Facebook/Google make enough money to have a customer facing team for their content creators. They have invested into hiring auditors but there is no recourse for creators. Channel being banned after having thousands of subscribers is akin to paypal locking your account with thousands of dollars in it. 5. Removing content should depend on legality (law of the land) of the content alone. Removal of account must be because of a lawful request from authorities. 6. "Demonetization" can't be blanket. Each advertiser is unique. One advertisers not liking content doesn't make it inappropriate for all advertisers. Protect creators from activist advertisers. 7. These are tech giants that we are talking about with the might of engineering and AI with them. Letting advertisers opt-in/opt-out of channels should be possible for them. The fact that they haven't done so insinuates that they like the power they wield by removing content they themselves don't like for whatever (monetary/ideological) reasons. They need to prove that they are can be trusted with this power. Conoco shouldn't be allowed to reject gas to a lawyer who is on her way to a courthouse for an EPA trial, Google shouldn't be allowed to remove accounts that it doesn't like, especially without recourse. A regulatory framework may be needed, as Zukerberg conceded recently. 8. Allow parents to whitelist channels for kids. Show videos to kids only after 1000+ views from parents who use parental controls. Allow parents to restrict the videos kids can see where parents set the video playlist and kids can pick only from that playlist. Parents can subscribe to a trusted playlist for kids e.g. from NPR or NASA or their local school, activity group or church. Absence of these tools shows YouTube willing to run videos on autoplay to maximize ads without much regards for age-appropriate parent-controlled safe video experience for kids. A parent should be able to say I don't want to see ads for Disney Cruise as they can't afford it. 9. Subscriber portability just like phone number portability from carrier to carrier. A content creator should be able to take his subscribers with her to a different service. The social network should show forwarding address to the subscribers when content creator leaves a platform for another. Bring real competition for social platforms. Disclaimer: I pay for YouTube Red, I like the ad-free experience and am glad that the option exists where I can buy that experience. I don't make, never have, any money based on the social media ad platforms. I am a consumer of content, not a creator. As a paying consumer of content, I do want complete freedom in my ability to see any legal content that others have created without an arbitrary filter of policy/guideline/appropriateness that has no basis in law of the land. I should have the ability to apply the filters if I choose to do so, just like marketplace of ideas there should be a marketplace for filters (whitelist/blacklist).

contravariant 9y ago

If you want to look at causes then I fear that it's not the monetization itself that's the problem but youtube's 'burned bridge' approach to communication. I've seen several people complain about the non-communicative stance YouTube has taken, leaving people with little to no ways of recourse. To me it seems likely that this person felt that this was the only way they could 'reach' YouTube.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
With 50 million channels it's impossible to give quality communication to everyone, so they prioritize based on size/viewership/ad dollars. Top creators have great communications channels - nobody's don't. It's not YouTube's responsibility to stroke everyone's fragile ego. The problem is people thinking they are more important than they are and then going to extreme lengths to make themselves relevant. That's what mass shooters are, people with egos that don't have the influence to match.
- adnzzzzZ 9y ago
  >it's impossible to give quality communication to everyone This is wrong though. See Valve for a counter example. Steam is also run by algorithms but Valve has managed to give people tons of information on what their algorithms are doing at various points on their store ("this game was shown to you because of X, Y and Z", for instance). The communication problem that YouTube has can be solved by them improving their product and letting creators see more of what their algorithms are doing behind the scenes, like Valve did with Steam.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    You can't compare communicating with users that are buying stuff (Steam customers) and communicating with paid creators (The 50M+ YouTube Channel content creators). It's a completely different set of questions/answers and a completely different relationship.
    - 9y ago

humanrebar 9y ago

> This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind. We'll, people can just understand the algorithms are flawed and not blame the advertisers for having an ad for toilet paper next to an video of someone TPing a house.

nailer 9y ago
Discussed this in the other thread, but there's nothing stopping YouTube from doing a video tagging system and making creators tag their works. Softly (the toilet paper brand) simply deselects 'pranks' as a tag to advertise on.

leshow 9y ago

> I don't blame the advertisers one bit from wanting to remove their ads from many videos. Once the media starts playing the game that "an ad on the video == the advertiser agrees with the message" I too would want to do everything I can to ensure that I'm not associated with bad things. Why do we do that on youtube when we don't do that on TV? Do we assume that if you're ad runs during <some sitcom> you agree with the jokes in it?

Kylekramer 9y ago
Happens on TV relatively often. Bill O'Reilly got the boot because advertisers pulled their ads after he got caught up in sexual harassment claims. TV just has also built up years of trust with advertisers and have legal departments reviewing all their content while YouTube was throwing up ads in front of ISIS recruitment videos.
- leshow 9y ago
  You're probably right, I don't watch cable TV so it was a poor comparison. Nobody is complaining that ISIS is losing their youtube ad revenue stream, that's a strawman argument. ISIS recruitment videos violate youtube's guidelines so they'd just be taken down, that's not what we're talking about here. What's actually happening is videos that have a dissenting or unpopular viewpoint have their ads removed, with a lot of harmless content caught in the crossfire due to the indiscriminate nature of youtube's algorithms.
creaghpatr 9y ago
This happens pretty often, currently other media outlets are pressuring advertisers to pull support from Laura Ingraham and effectively de-monetize the show. That's just the latest example though. Also, the FCC regulates broadcast TV and commercials. you can't simply run an obscene advertisement just because the station and/or station's audience approves it.
DanAndersen 9y ago
>Why do we do that on youtube when we don't do that on TV? Our society does do that on TV and radio. Consider the recent boycott attempts against Laura Ingraham: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott_in_support_of_David_Hogg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott_in_support_of_David_Ho... >Do we assume that if you're ad runs during <some sitcom> you agree with the jokes in it? I don't think most people actually assume that the advertiser literally agrees with all the content they are running ads on. Rather, I think that people have found that it's an effective ideological weapon. Going after the advertisers to attack content is a tactic that works. The attackers don't have to literally think that the advertisers are morally signing on with the content, they just have to think that enough people out there think that, and that the advertisers are risk-averse to bend the knee, that it's a useful tactic.

dspillett 9y ago

> Media outlets are (in many cases) just trying to report on things. I would be more guarded and say in some cases. The previous comment's accusation that "mainstream" media, televisual, radio, & written, is stoking the anti-youtube sentiment has legs to stand on. Self publishing and social media are their competition and as they are getting desperate they are playing dirty. This is true of both the big players and some collectives of small players (which like those in the Sinclair Broadcast Group are effectively one big player as the individual outles have to tow the corporate line). The hope that moving bits of advertising budgets away from online outlets will mean that some of it comes back their way. Of course this doesn't in any way make them culpable for the events at youtube's offices this week. Similarly while youtube's terrible user support (which I'm told is very much in keeping with Google's apparent policy of "like we give a fuck about individuals"), while it may have increased her ire, can't be considered even partly responsible either. The woman obviously had issues, and they were going to blow up in someone's face sooner or later if not treated. I can't pretend I have an answer, as it is a very complex issue, but a key part of the problem is the lack of support available for those with mental problems, and the lack of ways to protect the rest of society from the fallout when something pushes people over the edge. Lack of gun control is also part of the problem too IMO (sure she could have attacked with a knife instead, but knife attacks are generally less deadly).

pjc50 9y ago

> Advertisers could push back on the notion that "an ad == approval" Ads are far more than just "approval", they're funding. An ad appearing with a video is funding the production of more, similar videos. It's quite meaningless to "boycott" a service that you're not paying money for, but people recognise that the modern flow of money around the economy is extremely indirect. This results in a lack of moral accountability. Campaigners aim to collapse the distance between those spending the money and the actual actions that result, to say "are you really happy paying for this to happen?"

mitchdoogle 9y ago

I don't understand why it's a problem at all. Can't YouTube enact settings for advertisers to choose which videos they want to advertise on. Some of the obvious things to filter could be video category, view count, number of likes/dislikes, comments. Instead of demonetizing channels, they could tag them controversial and allow advertisers to say they don't want to advertise on controversial channels. Seems a lot better than a blanket ban on advertisements.

londons_explore 9y ago
In many cases, the advertiser doesn't have direct control over their ad placement. You're thinking the marketing manager at Coke clicking buttons in an admin panel on youtube. The reality is 3 layers of management inside Coke, 2 external advertising agencies, a brand management company, ad aggregators and 3rd party ad exchanges and resellers, video networks, then youtube. When the boss at coke sees an ad next to dubious content, it's much easier for them to say "don't advertise on youtube" than "switch this special setting on youtube to avoid controversial channels". Youtube is taking the "safe" approach by not allowing such advertising at all.