3 ms·
> They themselves demanded controversial content to be removed I don't think this is necessarily true. They demanded that their ads are not shown next to contr
by secondcoming 6y ago
> They themselves demanded controversial content to be removed
I don't think this is necessarily true. They demanded that their ads are not shown next to controversial content.
An unintended consequence of this is that the definition of 'controversial' is fluid and open to abuse. So if a pressure-group deems your thoughts and opinions 'controversial' you get no ads. And if you get no ads there's no real incentive for YT or whatever to serve your content; they're not charities. Your only other option is to self-host. So advertisers and indirectly control the societal narrative, and that should be troubling.
- raxxorrax 6y agoYoutube can just set the conditions with their market share. Content creators draw the attention they sell to advertisers. They made the mistake that they did comply and now get overwhelmed with further demands. They could have just had a "take it or leave it" strategy and I am very sure advertisers would just have continued to pay, because it benefits them too. Youtube set the precedent for advertisers demanding editorial control on content, it is purely on their misbehavior we have this problem. Because now advertisers can be made responsible where their ads are shown and what is seen next to them.