6 ms·

>, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. This suggestion (

by jasode 6y ago

>, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. This suggestion (and the comparison to phone companies) comes up repeatedly but Youtube can't _be_ a neutral carrier if they are funded by advertising. That's because the businesses' choice to pay for advertising is not a neutral choice. See "advertiser friendly content"[1] and Adpocalypse[2][3]. Land line phones and cell phones are funded by subscriptions and they are also point-to-point communication between 2 private individuals. Phones (barring small-scale exceptions such as conference calls) are not a "broadcasting" medium. There is no broadcasting medium in the world that acts as a neutral carrier. Not newspapers. And not tv like NBC/CBS/ABC. Even the government funded broadcasters like American PBS or UK BBC are not neutral carriers. Ok, let's say you this ambitious idealism to create a new broadcasting website that allows anything except for child pornography. How are you going to fund it? Advertising?!? That's just recreating the Youtube "ad friendly" dilemma. Subscriptions? Most people don't want to pay a subscription fee for user-generated-content. Yes some die-hard web surfers pay for Youtube Red/Premium to avoid ads but they are a small minority that's not enough to pay for the entire Youtube infrastructure. So far, only funding based on advertising seems to be viable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertiser-friendly_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertise... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+youtube+adpocalypse https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+... [3] https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spend-new-ad-controversy/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spe...

coldtea 6y ago
>This suggestion (and the comparison to phone companies) comes up repeatedly but Youtube can't _be_ a neutral carrier if they are funded by advertising. That's because the businesses' choice to pay for advertising is not a neutral choice. It should be as well. Disallow advertising companies from paying for ads on specific content only. They should have a blanket agreement to show N ads, to user demographics, interests, etc. But not the ability to not have their ads shown on particular channels/videos. That just gives the ad companies censorship power. >How are you going to fund it? Advertising?!? That's just recreating the Youtube "ad friendly" dilemma Ban by law "a la cart content/ad choice" across all platforms. Customers/Ad companies either sign to show their ads the platform or they don't. No selection of channels/videos they'll be shown on (except if they have a deal with a specific channel as sponsors). If that's the case for all platforms by law, they can't go to another platform to have it cater to their demands... That way a platform doesn't have to cater for specific "ad friendly" content. Just to have popular content, that draws ads in general.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Why shouldn’t I as an advertiser not be allowed to choose which content I want my products to be associated with? It amazes me how willing HN posters are willing to give up power to the government.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Why shouldn’t I as an advertiser not be allowed to choose which content I want my products to be associated with? That's easy, because the law I propose will decree so. As for the moral reasoning, because (a) advertisers are scum, and (b) they should not have powers over content publication. The same reason advertisers putting a billboard don't get to dictate what cars can and cannot pass by it. >It amazes me how willing HN posters are willing to give up power to the government. I'm all for giving power to the government, which people vote for, and have established mechanisms to control, instead of private interests that talk by throwing money. If anything, my problem with government is that enough of it is dictated by those same interests (lobbys, private interests, advertisers, etc) as opposed by the voters directly. But that's another thing to solve, and giving more power to those interests is the opposite of the solution.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      As for the moral reasoning, because (a) advertisers are scum, and (b) they should not have powers over content publication. The same reason advertisers putting a billboard don't get to dictate what cars can and cannot pass by it. Honestly I think politicians are bigger scum and they have the power of the state to impose their will. Do you really think if you gave the state power they would use it fairly? I'm all for giving power to the government, which people vote for, and have established mechanisms to control, instead of private interests that talk by throwing money. Elected officials don’t get into the minutiae of enforcing those types of laws. Unelected committees like the FTC do and most of your recourse if you don’t like it is to file lawsuits that are decided by unelected judges that have lifetime appointments. Not to mention that even those appointments are made by the Senate where the flyover states in “Middle America” and the “Bible Belt” have power far more than their populations would call for thanks to them having two seats in the Senate just like the more populous states. Those are both the last people I want to give more power to. Yes I’m well aware that the other side is just as bad.
golemiprague 6y ago
Why not? Even today an advertiser can choose where and in which type of videos to put their advertising, they can keep doing it and just stop their ads appearing in content they don't like. Also, if they do curate they need to have the same implications as any other publisher which they don't.

by jasode 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

>This suggestion (and the comparison to phone companies) comes up repeatedly but Youtube can't _be_ a neutral carrier if they are funded by advertising. That's because the businesses' choice to pay for advertising is not a neutral choice. It should be as well. Disallow advertising companies from paying for ads on specific content only. They should have a blanket agreement to show N ads, to user demographics, interests, etc. But not the ability to not have their ads shown on particular channels/videos. That just gives the ad companies censorship power. >How are you going to fund it? Advertising?!? That's just recreating the Youtube "ad friendly" dilemma Ban by law "a la cart content/ad choice" across all platforms. Customers/Ad companies either sign to show their ads the platform or they don't. No selection of channels/videos they'll be shown on (except if they have a deal with a specific channel as sponsors). If that's the case for all platforms by law, they can't go to another platform to have it cater to their demands... That way a platform doesn't have to cater for specific "ad friendly" content. Just to have popular content, that draws ads in general.

scarface74 6y ago
Why shouldn’t I as an advertiser not be allowed to choose which content I want my products to be associated with? It amazes me how willing HN posters are willing to give up power to the government.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Why shouldn’t I as an advertiser not be allowed to choose which content I want my products to be associated with? That's easy, because the law I propose will decree so. As for the moral reasoning, because (a) advertisers are scum, and (b) they should not have powers over content publication. The same reason advertisers putting a billboard don't get to dictate what cars can and cannot pass by it. >It amazes me how willing HN posters are willing to give up power to the government. I'm all for giving power to the government, which people vote for, and have established mechanisms to control, instead of private interests that talk by throwing money. If anything, my problem with government is that enough of it is dictated by those same interests (lobbys, private interests, advertisers, etc) as opposed by the voters directly. But that's another thing to solve, and giving more power to those interests is the opposite of the solution.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    As for the moral reasoning, because (a) advertisers are scum, and (b) they should not have powers over content publication. The same reason advertisers putting a billboard don't get to dictate what cars can and cannot pass by it. Honestly I think politicians are bigger scum and they have the power of the state to impose their will. Do you really think if you gave the state power they would use it fairly? I'm all for giving power to the government, which people vote for, and have established mechanisms to control, instead of private interests that talk by throwing money. Elected officials don’t get into the minutiae of enforcing those types of laws. Unelected committees like the FTC do and most of your recourse if you don’t like it is to file lawsuits that are decided by unelected judges that have lifetime appointments. Not to mention that even those appointments are made by the Senate where the flyover states in “Middle America” and the “Bible Belt” have power far more than their populations would call for thanks to them having two seats in the Senate just like the more populous states. Those are both the last people I want to give more power to. Yes I’m well aware that the other side is just as bad.

golemiprague 6y ago

Why not? Even today an advertiser can choose where and in which type of videos to put their advertising, they can keep doing it and just stop their ads appearing in content they don't like. Also, if they do curate they need to have the same implications as any other publisher which they don't.