3 ms·

How so? They are still free to post their videos, it's just now they can't profit from making videos which will end up killing people, that sounds reasonable to

How so? They are still free to post their videos, it's just now they can't profit from making videos which will end up killing people, that sounds reasonable to me.

golergka 8y ago
It's a good decision, but it shouldn't be Google's place or role to make such decisions.
- simonh 8y ago
  Why not? They provision the adverts, collect the payments and take a cut. It seems reasonable they should be able to decide not to do those things. On the face of it the alternative is to coerce them into doing so against their will. What is the argument for doing that?
  - paulgb 8y ago
    Also, as the article mentions, a number of advertisers "said they will take action to prevent their ads from running in front of anti-vax videos" Google could let the market solve this problem, but ultimately brands don't want to manage their own blacklists, they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to.
    - Udik 8y ago
      It's incredibly easy for youtube to exclude certain ads from certain channels. > they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to. Are they going to change platform? To what?
      - paulgb 8y ago
        > Are they going to change platform? To what? The most likely immediate switch is not to a new platform but to a whitelist of the top 100 or 1k channels. Because of the Pareto principle, these channels get the majority of views anyway, and it's easier to manage a 100-1k whitelist than to blacklist every long-tail channel with content you don't like. You could argue that this is no different to YouTube in the short run because they still get the ad dollars, but it's in their best interest in the long-run to make the long tail inventory viable.
jdietrich 8y ago
It's worth noting that YouTube have both a blacklist and a whitelist for advertising. Most videos that get "demonetised" are still eligible to earn ad revenue, but advertisers have to specifically opt-in to advertise against these videos. A small proportion of videos and creators are completely ineligible to earn revenue because they explicitly violate YouTube's ToS (usually on copyright grounds). Channels also require a minimum number of subscribers and views to be eligible for monetisation. This strikes me as a sensible compromise. Most content creators are frustrated by the lack of transparency and the often arbitrary nature of demonetisation, but they see it as essentially necessary to safeguard their livelihoods. YouTube didn't start demonetising videos apropos of nothing, they did it as a specific response to an advertiser boycott in 2017. To a great extent, demonetisation saved YouTube from economic failure.

How so? They are still free to post their videos, it's just now they can't profit from making videos which will end up killing people, that sounds reasonable to me.

golergka 8y ago

It's a good decision, but it shouldn't be Google's place or role to make such decisions.

simonh 8y ago
Why not? They provision the adverts, collect the payments and take a cut. It seems reasonable they should be able to decide not to do those things. On the face of it the alternative is to coerce them into doing so against their will. What is the argument for doing that?
- paulgb 8y ago
  Also, as the article mentions, a number of advertisers "said they will take action to prevent their ads from running in front of anti-vax videos" Google could let the market solve this problem, but ultimately brands don't want to manage their own blacklists, they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to.
  - Udik 8y ago
    It's incredibly easy for youtube to exclude certain ads from certain channels. > they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to. Are they going to change platform? To what?
    - paulgb 8y ago
      > Are they going to change platform? To what? The most likely immediate switch is not to a new platform but to a whitelist of the top 100 or 1k channels. Because of the Pareto principle, these channels get the majority of views anyway, and it's easier to manage a 100-1k whitelist than to blacklist every long-tail channel with content you don't like. You could argue that this is no different to YouTube in the short run because they still get the ad dollars, but it's in their best interest in the long-run to make the long tail inventory viable.

jdietrich 8y ago

It's worth noting that YouTube have both a blacklist and a whitelist for advertising. Most videos that get "demonetised" are still eligible to earn ad revenue, but advertisers have to specifically opt-in to advertise against these videos. A small proportion of videos and creators are completely ineligible to earn revenue because they explicitly violate YouTube's ToS (usually on copyright grounds). Channels also require a minimum number of subscribers and views to be eligible for monetisation. This strikes me as a sensible compromise. Most content creators are frustrated by the lack of transparency and the often arbitrary nature of demonetisation, but they see it as essentially necessary to safeguard their livelihoods. YouTube didn't start demonetising videos apropos of nothing, they did it as a specific response to an advertiser boycott in 2017. To a great extent, demonetisation saved YouTube from economic failure.