4 ms·

But what I don't get is... What's wrong with funding sex-related content? And what legislature is against that? Personally i was just under the impression that

But what I don't get is... What's wrong with funding sex-related content? And what legislature is against that? Personally i was just under the impression that YouTube is doing that to keep the content family friendly for their advertisers. Instead of all this, if we all collectively normalized this type of subjectively normal content, it would cease to be a problem. It's also difficult, because what's considered as "sexual" changes over time. It's even a little mind boggling to me that female breasts are still so sexualized but that's a topic for another day.

tinus_hn 4y ago
What’s wrong with it is that advertisers, who are YouTube’s customers, don’t want to advertise next to anything that has to do with sex. They will get very angry if YouTube shows their ads next to a video that has to do with sex. To avoid making their customers angry, YouTube doesn’t show any ads next to videos that have anything to do with sex. Next, because these videos don’t provide any revenue for YouTube they don’t have a big incentive to keep them online. In fact they do have an incentive to be quick at pulling them down.
admax88qqq 4y ago
> if we all collectively... Aye there's the rub. Not everyone thinks the way you do.
Test0129 4y ago
You're reducing this too far. It's simple. Advertisers may have several reasons to not be shown on sex-related content. Regardless of how mundane that content may be. The first and most obvious reason is demographic. People who tend to be sex positive (or whatever the term is now) tend to have certain purchase patterns associated with certain lifestyles, political ideologies, and age groups. They may not sell a product and don't want to pay for ad space. Next, it may be off-brand for them to do so anyway. It might make sense for Trojan to place an ad on a video about the proper use of condoms, but not Cheerios. Third is political neutrality. Since our current society is on a perpetual witchhunt and reduces people and entire companies into the sum of their political views it's often easier to simply take no stance. It's better to not do anything then do something and then tomorrow it's "bad" or wrongthink. Finally, sex-related content is a hot button issue related to children. One "sex positive" state, California, just passed a law to come up with yet another way to "protect the children". If you demonetize all of the content with broad strokes you can go to the states and say you comply with their rules. It's far, far more complicated than "collective normalization". One could even argue that could have blowback that we can't measure. Sex-related content extends far beyond a simple female breast or a tutorial on using a condom.

tinus_hn 4y ago

What’s wrong with it is that advertisers, who are YouTube’s customers, don’t want to advertise next to anything that has to do with sex. They will get very angry if YouTube shows their ads next to a video that has to do with sex. To avoid making their customers angry, YouTube doesn’t show any ads next to videos that have anything to do with sex. Next, because these videos don’t provide any revenue for YouTube they don’t have a big incentive to keep them online. In fact they do have an incentive to be quick at pulling them down.

admax88qqq 4y ago

> if we all collectively... Aye there's the rub. Not everyone thinks the way you do.

Test0129 4y ago

You're reducing this too far. It's simple. Advertisers may have several reasons to not be shown on sex-related content. Regardless of how mundane that content may be. The first and most obvious reason is demographic. People who tend to be sex positive (or whatever the term is now) tend to have certain purchase patterns associated with certain lifestyles, political ideologies, and age groups. They may not sell a product and don't want to pay for ad space. Next, it may be off-brand for them to do so anyway. It might make sense for Trojan to place an ad on a video about the proper use of condoms, but not Cheerios. Third is political neutrality. Since our current society is on a perpetual witchhunt and reduces people and entire companies into the sum of their political views it's often easier to simply take no stance. It's better to not do anything then do something and then tomorrow it's "bad" or wrongthink. Finally, sex-related content is a hot button issue related to children. One "sex positive" state, California, just passed a law to come up with yet another way to "protect the children". If you demonetize all of the content with broad strokes you can go to the states and say you comply with their rules. It's far, far more complicated than "collective normalization". One could even argue that could have blowback that we can't measure. Sex-related content extends far beyond a simple female breast or a tutorial on using a condom.