3 ms·

The point that is being made, is that when advertisers claim that they don't want to be associated with certain topics, that is a lie. The truth is that they do

The point that is being made, is that when advertisers claim that they don't want to be associated with certain topics, that is a lie. The truth is that they don't want to be associated with certain people. As I posted in a previous comment, Coca Cola has no objections to having their brand appear every few minutes overlayed over the worst mass shooting in American history[1] So, it rings quite hollow when people talk about sensitivity of advertisers to where their ads are placed. It is obviously not true. It is pretty obvious that YouTube is intentionally driving away independent content like H3H3 productions through dishonest and inconsistent policies, in order to turn their platform into just another element of the cable TV cabal. [1] https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/914747203997990912 https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/91474720399799091...

atomi 9y ago
Great insight. I just want to add the nice thing about the internet is that we can build our own platform to meet the needs people currently have.
nemothekid 9y ago
>It is pretty obvious that YouTube is intentionally driving away independent content like H3H3 productions through dishonest and inconsistent policies I don't see how it's obvious YouTube is doing anything. By your own accord, its the advertisers who don't want to be associated with certain people, not YouTube. YouTube very likely doesn't care as long as they get a cut, from the perspective on advertisers they've been dragging their feet. If those people don't want to pay you via YouTube's black box, then it's you either have to negotiate with them directly or find another revenue stream. YouTubers have been treating advertiser money as a free, unbiased, public money source when it's not - and as advertisers spend more and more, we are going to see them require creators funded by their dollars to stick to their song and dance. The reason why YouTube is turning into another element of cable TV cabal is because its largely funded by the same source (Turner group makes 60% of their revenue from ads, despite only managing pay-tv only content). It's not surprising that the guys funding medium A, will also want to apply the same restrictions to medium B. The reason I think the video is misleading, and also what I can't seem to understand why everyone makes this same mistake, is that they frame the issue as something YouTube is doing, and not something advertisers are doing. The billions paid out over the past decade are now going to have strings attached. If you don't want to sell out to "the man", then find another revenue stream and don't depend on advertising.
- apostacy 9y ago
  But this is all being directly facilitated by YouTube. YouTube is removing videos from even having the opportunity to be monetized. This i before the advertisers would even be involved. The example that is often cited, is that YouTube's official policy is that they won't even consider videos that talk about gun violence for monetization -- except if you are on the secret whitelist. It is not the advertisers that are clumsily analyzing caption data and descriptions for potentially offensive words. YouTube is very much the party to blame for this. YouTube is suspiciously enthusiastic about this. And there is a very clear pattern of using demonitization as a tool of soft censorship to drive less convenient content creators from their platform. I think that the platform that YouTube presents itself as, versus what it actually is, is misleading and exploitive. And that itself is bad.

atomi 9y ago

Great insight. I just want to add the nice thing about the internet is that we can build our own platform to meet the needs people currently have.

nemothekid 9y ago

>It is pretty obvious that YouTube is intentionally driving away independent content like H3H3 productions through dishonest and inconsistent policies I don't see how it's obvious YouTube is doing anything. By your own accord, its the advertisers who don't want to be associated with certain people, not YouTube. YouTube very likely doesn't care as long as they get a cut, from the perspective on advertisers they've been dragging their feet. If those people don't want to pay you via YouTube's black box, then it's you either have to negotiate with them directly or find another revenue stream. YouTubers have been treating advertiser money as a free, unbiased, public money source when it's not - and as advertisers spend more and more, we are going to see them require creators funded by their dollars to stick to their song and dance. The reason why YouTube is turning into another element of cable TV cabal is because its largely funded by the same source (Turner group makes 60% of their revenue from ads, despite only managing pay-tv only content). It's not surprising that the guys funding medium A, will also want to apply the same restrictions to medium B. The reason I think the video is misleading, and also what I can't seem to understand why everyone makes this same mistake, is that they frame the issue as something YouTube is doing, and not something advertisers are doing. The billions paid out over the past decade are now going to have strings attached. If you don't want to sell out to "the man", then find another revenue stream and don't depend on advertising.

apostacy 9y ago
But this is all being directly facilitated by YouTube. YouTube is removing videos from even having the opportunity to be monetized. This i before the advertisers would even be involved. The example that is often cited, is that YouTube's official policy is that they won't even consider videos that talk about gun violence for monetization -- except if you are on the secret whitelist. It is not the advertisers that are clumsily analyzing caption data and descriptions for potentially offensive words. YouTube is very much the party to blame for this. YouTube is suspiciously enthusiastic about this. And there is a very clear pattern of using demonitization as a tool of soft censorship to drive less convenient content creators from their platform. I think that the platform that YouTube presents itself as, versus what it actually is, is misleading and exploitive. And that itself is bad.