4 ms·
Your plan fails, lets say they implement what you do. Let say that company X advertises but only on the safe subjets. Then my immediate attack will be: "Compan
by RegnisGnaw 5y ago
Your plan fails, lets say they implement what you do. Let say that company X advertises but only on the safe subjets. Then my immediate attack will be:
"Company X advertises on a website showing jailbait sexual content" or "Company X advertising on a site promoting Q Conspiracy".
You are going to fight an uphill battle explaining to people the naunces of the system, which is a losing battle.
- Jensson 5y agoYour comment doesn't make sense, Youtube still show those videos in the current system it just doesn't run ads on them. So if it was an issue then it would have already happened, the fact that it doesn't mean that it isn't an issue.
- RegnisGnaw 5y agoAgain your dealing with absolutes here. Yes there are still jailbait videos on YouTube, but Google is already heavily moderating and deleting videos. The more "extreme" ones are already being deleted and moderated, what is left is probably more of the tamer ones. The amount of jailbait videos or hate videos or whatever you see now is probably 1/10 or less of what would be there if it was a free for all. What is being proposed is no moderation of content. The advertisers can choose what to show ads on, but that's it. In that case there would be a flood of these contents. Then its easier to attack them.