5 ms·

Generating outrage is still a cleaner business model than monetizing pre-teen crotch shots, which is the business model you seem to be defending here.

by 908087 8y ago

robertrobot 8y ago
That's a false dichotomy brother.
srkmno 8y ago
I'm saying that YouTube is successfully blocking 99.9999% of cases but journalists make their living by that 0.0001% context and nuance be damned.
NathanKP 8y ago
That's a pretty bold strawman argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that YouTube should be monetizing pre-teen crotch shots. The way I read it OP is pointing out a definite trend in which the other mainstream medias like to jump on any situation that they can use to attack YouTube and YouTube's ad revenue. Wired in particular has a weird fascination with criticizing YouTube and YouTubers. It's a pretty transparent attack by one media that is losing attention against another media that has the attention. You can see it to some extent with how other media formats report on Facebook as well. It's not just a war for attention, its a war to reduce the ad budget that gets spent on the competing platform. In particular for Wired making articles like "Pewdiepie is a nazi" or "YouTube is full of paedophiles" isn't just about reporting, or even clickbait to attract views. They also specifically mention ads in these type of articles as a way to hurt the bottom line ad revenue of YouTube by trying to scare advertisers away from advertising on YouTube.
- sam0x17 8y ago
  Yeah. I've basically concluded that YouTube is either going to have to A) be replaced by something else with a lot less censorship or B) remove all advertisements, charge a $5/year subscription for access to more than 5 videos a month, or C) come up with some other non-advertising way of monetizing that I haven't thought of. Case in point, as long as YouTube is beholding to the wims of advertisers, free speech is a dying thing on youtube. The same thing goes for how they are handling copyright strikes etc. They should be taking an aggressive stance to crack down on people who abuse the reporting system (e.g. ban an IP if it has X false reports, use the content ID system to actually detect whether it is fair use and whitelist those cases, which is easy to detect because it's based literally on how long the borrowed portion of the video is), instead of just assuming every report is 100% legit.
  - sam0x17 8y ago
    In other words, they should operate on a presumption of fair use.
- egypturnash 8y ago
  See the thing is that YouTube (and every other company whose business model is “serve ads next to user-generated content”) will let pretty much anything go through unless it is something that will generate huge fines, or will get advertisers to walk away. They are aggressively amoral corporations whose only motivation is profit, and they will promote anything that results in people seeing a lot of ads, regardless of whether what the ads are being placed next to is healthy for the viewers or for society at large. Saying “hey big advertisers do you know your ads are showing up on this hideous thing” is one of the few ways available to try to get some sense of moral accountability to one of these platforms. Reporting individual pieces of content or individual users does nothing, if it’s drawing paid views there will be another person doing the same thing that the system will be quite happy to start promoting until they, too, get reported.

Generating outrage is still a cleaner business model than monetizing pre-teen crotch shots, which is the business model you seem to be defending here.

by 908087 8y ago

Generating outrage is still a cleaner business model than monetizing pre-teen crotch shots, which is the business model you seem to be defending here.

robertrobot 8y ago

That's a false dichotomy brother.

srkmno 8y ago

I'm saying that YouTube is successfully blocking 99.9999% of cases but journalists make their living by that 0.0001% context and nuance be damned.

NathanKP 8y ago

That's a pretty bold strawman argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that YouTube should be monetizing pre-teen crotch shots. The way I read it OP is pointing out a definite trend in which the other mainstream medias like to jump on any situation that they can use to attack YouTube and YouTube's ad revenue. Wired in particular has a weird fascination with criticizing YouTube and YouTubers. It's a pretty transparent attack by one media that is losing attention against another media that has the attention. You can see it to some extent with how other media formats report on Facebook as well. It's not just a war for attention, its a war to reduce the ad budget that gets spent on the competing platform. In particular for Wired making articles like "Pewdiepie is a nazi" or "YouTube is full of paedophiles" isn't just about reporting, or even clickbait to attract views. They also specifically mention ads in these type of articles as a way to hurt the bottom line ad revenue of YouTube by trying to scare advertisers away from advertising on YouTube.

sam0x17 8y ago
Yeah. I've basically concluded that YouTube is either going to have to A) be replaced by something else with a lot less censorship or B) remove all advertisements, charge a $5/year subscription for access to more than 5 videos a month, or C) come up with some other non-advertising way of monetizing that I haven't thought of. Case in point, as long as YouTube is beholding to the wims of advertisers, free speech is a dying thing on youtube. The same thing goes for how they are handling copyright strikes etc. They should be taking an aggressive stance to crack down on people who abuse the reporting system (e.g. ban an IP if it has X false reports, use the content ID system to actually detect whether it is fair use and whitelist those cases, which is easy to detect because it's based literally on how long the borrowed portion of the video is), instead of just assuming every report is 100% legit.
- sam0x17 8y ago
  In other words, they should operate on a presumption of fair use.
egypturnash 8y ago
See the thing is that YouTube (and every other company whose business model is “serve ads next to user-generated content”) will let pretty much anything go through unless it is something that will generate huge fines, or will get advertisers to walk away. They are aggressively amoral corporations whose only motivation is profit, and they will promote anything that results in people seeing a lot of ads, regardless of whether what the ads are being placed next to is healthy for the viewers or for society at large. Saying “hey big advertisers do you know your ads are showing up on this hideous thing” is one of the few ways available to try to get some sense of moral accountability to one of these platforms. Reporting individual pieces of content or individual users does nothing, if it’s drawing paid views there will be another person doing the same thing that the system will be quite happy to start promoting until they, too, get reported.