6 ms·

>Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this i

• listless 5y ago
  In the beginning, but now both sides see them as the enemy of the people. One side thinks they censor too much and the other thinks not enough. So YouTube is now caught in a political game of trying to appease whichever party is in power lest they get regulated. Hence why Trump stayed on Twitter until he was out of office.
• mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Those threats were never serious though, because YT is too big, but also because advertisers know they can advertise on certain subsets of content that is not offensive.
• voxic11 5y ago
  Google's response to pressures from advertisers wasn't to censor anything. They just demonetized videos that the advertisers didn't want to be associated with. Hosting someone's video for free without even interrupting it with ads seems like the opposite of censorship to me. There may be something interesting to say about how the desires of advertisers shapes our discourse, but its not censorship (in this case at least).
  • takeda 5y ago
    Doesn't matter, they still used this as censoring (claiming YouTube cut funds to kill them). I even saw (this mostly was Facebook, but also was done on YouTube) where the channel/fan page purposefully switching videos to private while talking they are being censored.
    • nitrogen 5y ago
      purposefully switching videos to private Sometimes channels will do this because they have "strikes" shown on their creator pages, so they hide their videos to avoid having so many strikes they get shut down. Some science and engineering channels I watch have run into this problem.
  • neverminder 5y ago
    So now they are demonetizing videos that want to be monetized and vice versa. Time for YouTube's demise is long overdue. I hope Peertube, decentralization and finger to censorship is the future.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • alpaca128 5y ago
    > Hosting someone's video for free without even interrupting it with ads seems like the opposite of censorship to me. Doesn't demonetization on YT just mean the ads still run but the money doesn't flow to the creator anymore? Considering YouTube does it that way with copyright claims and also automatically added ads to previously ad-free videos just because they could, it would surprise me if they'd remove video ads by themselves.
    • ocdtrekkie 5y ago
      No, because the whole issue is advertisers refuse to have their ads shown with certain types of videos. The ads go away. Johnson and Johnson doesn't want their ads shown next to Nazi propaganda, so demonetization pulls advertising entirely.
    • Nasrudith 5y ago
      No that is from copyright claims and the holder's desire.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • Aunche 5y ago
    They both censored and demonetized. You're going to have a much more difficult time trying to find Elsagate videos on YouTube anymore.
  • heavyset_go 5y ago
    Google doesn't just demonitize videos, they make videos impossible to find by unlisting them from search results[1] and shadowbanning creators: > One of the videos that had been restricted was a trailer for one of his short films; another was an It Gets Better video aimed at LGBTQ youth. Sam had been shadow-banned, meaning that users couldn’t search for it on YouTube. None of the videos were sexually explicit or profane. > ... five YouTube channels alleged that the platform had unfairly targeted LGBTQ content creators with practices similar to those described by Bardo: demonetizing videos, placing them in restricted mode without warning, and hiding them from search results. [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/lgbtq-youtube-lawsuit-censorship-877919/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/lgbtq-...
• syshum 5y ago
  And why did "advertisers threatened to boycott" due to pressure from "hyperliberal's" that are prputally offended by everything. They tried to get YT to do it, when YT ignored them they went after the money... It is right from the liberal playbook
  • namlem 5y ago
    The first Adpocalypse preceded that. Rather, it was part of an internal drive to focus on more "family-friendly" content. Iirc, it was actually the presence of Islamic State propaganda on the site that was part of the motivation.
  • sureglymop 5y ago
    The advertisers threatened to boycott because otherwise they would have risked being scrutinized and potentially making less profit. What actually happened isn't that one side of the political spectrum "censored" the other side in some sort of targeted attack.. it's that advertisers and private companies optimized for generating as much profits as possible by (obviously) pondering to the majority of potential customers. Ironically.. such is the nature of capitalism.
  • SamBam 5y ago
    Consumers objecting to content is as old as television, and even older, and is certainly not owned by "hyperliberals." For example, Conservatives demanded radio stations stop playing the Beatles, and, only slightly more recently, the Dixie Chicks. They called up advertisers as well. You could probably find people complaining to artists' patrons in Medieval texts, if you looked.
    • syshum 5y ago
      Nice what-aboutism... Yes Conservatives used to be just as bad, I was out there in the 90's complaining about authoritarian conservatives. We libertarians did not mind our flank and Authoritarian liberals today are about 10000000x more of an issue than even the most extreme bible thumping conservative from the 90's ever was
• nomemerror 5y ago
  So people on HN suffer from memory loss? 'hyoerliveral boogeyman' is actually a very accurate description of the pervasive and ongoing censorship across platforms, service providers, and many others. What else do you call the complete removal of parler? The on going suppression of covid news? The ongoing suppression of even discussing the 2020 election fraud? Facebook warning people that they are being exposed to extremism? There are many more to list, in sure I'll get nitpicks, and silent down votes -- my comment is likely auto dead because HN canceled my opinion long ago, and not for any policy violation, simply because I speak with truth and conviction. HN is mostly propaganda.
  • eropple 5y ago
    > What else do you call the complete removal of parler? Failure to adhere to terms and services or to express intent to adhere to them going forward. Parler couldn't or wouldn't stop people from breaking their providers' terms of service and didn't show a good-faith effort towards doing so. Other right-wing outlets do do those things, and have not gotten drilled despite their odious beliefs.
    • re-al 5y ago
      at nomemerror (I cannot reply directly) I don't understand why your comment is flagged and dead! You are making a perfectly reasonable point. HN admins, what is unacceptable about what is being stated - I genuinely do not see it.
      • eropple 5y ago
        If you start going on about "election fraud", as that poster did, I'll usually flag the post. In this case, with my reply, I preferred to point out the obvious mischaracterization and leave addressing the mendacious falsehoods to others, but it looks like others decided to do something about it.
        • re-al 5y ago
          Is it not possible to talk about election fraud? I believe that this really has happened historically. I would be fine to agree with you if you have proven that there is not election fraud, but obviously having a different opinion is not proof.
• handrous 5y ago
  They (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, even Reddit) act so very much like publishers that it seems to me the mistake was granting "platform" protections to sites that: claim broad rights over posted content; use complex logic to decide what to promote (that they promote anything is alarming, for a "platform"!) and what a visitor sees while also hosting and distributing that content they're highlighting or promoting (which makes them distinct from some rando's best-of lists on their personal website, linking to content hosted elsewhere); place ads alongside content but sometimes choose not to; and, at times, engage in revenue sharing. And that's before we even get into the censorship.
  • eli 5y ago
    This "platform vs publisher" thing is a myth based on a misunderstand of how Section 230 works. The law doesn't actually distinguish between the two.
    • pindab0ter 5y ago
      It’s an international issue that not only U.S. law applies to. And even if it did, it’s still worth discussing.
    • infamouscow 5y ago
      The law is written by people, so it frankly doesn't matter what it says currently because it can (and probably will) change.
      • eli 5y ago
        I mean, sure, but parent comment was implying platforms have special legal protections currently, which isn’t really the case.
    • handrous 5y ago
      It distinguishes between something and a publisher, in that it says whatever-you-want-to-call-that-something can't be treated as the publisher (it uses that word) of information it's distributing.
• danenania 5y ago
  The advertisers are bluffing when they threaten these boycotts. They're not going to stop advertising on google, facebook, twitter, etc., which these days probably represents a majority of their advertising budget and even more of their ROI. They'll make threats because it costs them nothing, but all the platforms need to do is say "no" and that would be the end of it. Even better: immediately ban the accounts of companies that make these threats. They won't receive any more of them.
  • addicted 5y ago
    They don't need to stop all advertising. They can simply stop advertising on Youtube and focus advertising on Facebook, or stop on Twitter and focus on Tik Tok. They can pit the providers against each other. And that's basically how a free market works.
  • eli 5y ago
    Yeah I don't think Facebook is going to ban Coca Cola
• jayspell 5y ago
  What about telling advertisers that if they want to boycott, go ahead, find another Youtube to advertise on. They make 15 billion a year in advertising and 3 billion on subscriptions. I'm willing to bet with that much advertising it would be very unlikely any advertising boycott could make a significant difference.
  • nemothekid 5y ago
    >What about telling advertisers that if they want to boycott, go ahead, find another Youtube to advertise on. Yeah, it's called Facebook. Regardless these weren't some no names who were boycotting, it was pretty much the whales like P&G and CocaCola who were complaining. (Just those 2 spend $8BN/year). At the very least having any of them pull out would cratered at least one exec's bonus.
• throwawaysea 5y ago
  A few points: 1. Google definitely censors things on their own as well. Their own search engine turns up a long list of examples, so I won't rehash them all here, but one illustrative example is their censorship of the dissenter plug-in (https://reclaimthenet.org/google-chrome-web-store-bans-dissenter-extension/ https://reclaimthenet.org/google-chrome-web-store-bans-disse...), which also seems to be an example of censorship collusion within the tech industry. 2. Google has a long history of internal activism that is highly progressive, and regularly applies pressure on the company, and creates a culture of fear for employees who are either conservative, centrist, or even moderately left-leaning. The James Damore fiasco is a great example of the internal political culture rearing its head and how it impacts who's comfortable speaking up and steering the company's culture (https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/google-fires-employee-for-expressing-an-opinion-s.html https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/google-fires-employee-for-...). 3. Why do you think advertisers became "more and more concerned"? It's because of left-leaning activist pressure from groups like Sleeping Giants who have made it their mission to organize activists and create a false sense of societal pressure on advertisers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Giants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Giants). It's the same as Google censoring things, because typically activist employees will draw attention internally to these activist campaigns, and try to alter the company's otherwise neutral stances. There's also a pipeline from internal activist employees to certain members of the press (like Geekwire) to try to use external pressure to move company stances.
  • nemothekid 5y ago
    >The James Damore fiasco is a great example of the internal political culture rearing its head and how it impacts who's comfortable speaking up and steering the company's culture I'm willing to accept the premise that Google could have neoliberal pressure on the company (I don't know if I would consider the pressure you allude to be progressive or left leaning). That said, James Damore's memo, if you've read it is not a good example of it and I believe he was rightly exiled for it. The memo is poorly sourced and poorly argued. It reads like someone who doesn't understand Dunning–Kruger is.
    • throwawaysea 5y ago