4 ms·

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.