3 ms·

Explicitly catering to illegal content (or legally disputed content) is one of the worst things any established company could do. Catering to legal but "demone

Explicitly catering to illegal content (or legally disputed content) is one of the worst things any established company could do. Catering to legal but "demonetized" content won't land you in jail at least, but probably still isn't a great business decision. YouTube already allows advertisers to advertise on most risky inventory (aka "demonetized" videos), they just rarely do so. It's unlikely that advertisers will want to pay more for the same category of video just because it's on a different platform. A startup that chooses to adopt this approach is going to have a hard time attracting creators since they'll have an equal or (most likely) worse monetization narrative than YouTube for that class of content. IMO a business that wants to enter the online video market would be best served by focusing on product differentiation. This is probably why imgur is trying to do some interesting experimentation with gif-like restrictions.

chatmasta 8y ago
The solution is a new monetization mechanism. That’s why steemit seems to be gaining some momentum IMO
josteink 8y ago
> Explicitly catering to illegal content (or legally disputed content) You mean like all the demonetized gun safety videos? Your biggest mistake here is assuming that Google only demonetized things which are offensive, questionable or illegal. Most demonetized channels carry no such things. Their biggest problem is usually that they are not "on board" with the ideologies currently pushed by the radical political left.
- slivym 8y ago
  Google demonetized videos that their sponsors wanted demonetized. Now, I don't know, but I find it rather far fetched that Google's large sponsors are exclusively part of the 'radical political left', but even if they are - they're the ones spending the money. Imgur could try and court those video makers to produce for example gun safety videos on imgur, but to make a profit they have to also attract advertisers. Pushing a set of content that the advertising have already found unattractive seems like a bad way of bringing those advertisers across.
  - Rjevski 8y ago
    > their sponsors wanted demonetized I understand that’s the intention, but is that actually the end result? I feel like the de-monetization went way overboard, most likely because it’s either monkeys or a shitty algorithm like the one for identifying copyright infringement on audio or prioritising clickbait in “recommended” videos. As a result I do believe there is a possibility for a site to offer a better space both for creators and advertisers, where the monetization criteria is defined by humans (possibly even the video’s creator, under threat of deleting their channel if they intentionally mislabel it - instead of monkeys or stupid algorithms).
- xorcist 8y ago
  Of course advertisers should be forced to spend their money on anti-feminist propaganda, everything else would be downright undemocratic!

chatmasta 8y ago

The solution is a new monetization mechanism. That’s why steemit seems to be gaining some momentum IMO

josteink 8y ago

> Explicitly catering to illegal content (or legally disputed content) You mean like all the demonetized gun safety videos? Your biggest mistake here is assuming that Google only demonetized things which are offensive, questionable or illegal. Most demonetized channels carry no such things. Their biggest problem is usually that they are not "on board" with the ideologies currently pushed by the radical political left.

slivym 8y ago
Google demonetized videos that their sponsors wanted demonetized. Now, I don't know, but I find it rather far fetched that Google's large sponsors are exclusively part of the 'radical political left', but even if they are - they're the ones spending the money. Imgur could try and court those video makers to produce for example gun safety videos on imgur, but to make a profit they have to also attract advertisers. Pushing a set of content that the advertising have already found unattractive seems like a bad way of bringing those advertisers across.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  > their sponsors wanted demonetized I understand that’s the intention, but is that actually the end result? I feel like the de-monetization went way overboard, most likely because it’s either monkeys or a shitty algorithm like the one for identifying copyright infringement on audio or prioritising clickbait in “recommended” videos. As a result I do believe there is a possibility for a site to offer a better space both for creators and advertisers, where the monetization criteria is defined by humans (possibly even the video’s creator, under threat of deleting their channel if they intentionally mislabel it - instead of monkeys or stupid algorithms).
xorcist 8y ago
Of course advertisers should be forced to spend their money on anti-feminist propaganda, everything else would be downright undemocratic!