3 ms·

I think it's more curious they're willing to at least imply moral imperative and say "this bad guy can't make money on our platform" but continue to distribute

I think it's more curious they're willing to at least imply moral imperative and say "this bad guy can't make money on our platform" but continue to distribute and profit off his content themselves. It's not immediately clear to me which is worse...

nickthegreek 3y ago
Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned? I found a page of other unfair practices that google is using to steal our cash: https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements Russel Brand is still allowed to view youtubes, even post videos. The company that has built, maintained and spent to allow all that has removed the ability from a user user to monetize his videos, but hasn't even silenced him. I don't know if shutting down his channel and removing all the videos (which Google has a legal right to do) would be better.
- jahsome 3y ago
  > Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.
  - djur 3y ago
    Monetization is not a moral judgment of the content, it's a business judgment of what high-paying advertisers are willing to be associated with. There are plenty of criteria for monetization that don't have anything to do with the moral value of the content.
    - jahsome 3y ago
      But they're still running ads on the content, associating the content with advertisers. It's not "saving" their customers (advertisers). It's denying wages to the producer. I can't see it as anything other than virtue signaling, coupled with a profit.
      - djur 3y ago
        Advertisers get to choose whether their ads run on "limited ads" videos or not.
SR2Z 3y ago
They're saying "we won't silence you, but we're not hosting your video for free or paying you for this shit either." It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always request to have it taken down.
- jsiepkes 3y ago
  You seriously think the amount of money YouTube makes from ads on those videos is not a magnitude it costs them to host them?
  - swores 3y ago
    Since they didn't say that, no they probably don't think that. Just like me saying "I don't work for free" doesn't imply I think that my salary is also the exact net cost I have as expenditure for doing the work.
    - jsiepkes 3y ago
      Then why dispute YouTube is profiting from videos they themselves classify as harmful?
      - swores 3y ago
        They didn't dispute that, they suggested a line of logic for the behaviour. It being a reply to your comment doesn't automatically mean it's an attempt to prove your comment wrong.

nickthegreek 3y ago

Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned? I found a page of other unfair practices that google is using to steal our cash: https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements Russel Brand is still allowed to view youtubes, even post videos. The company that has built, maintained and spent to allow all that has removed the ability from a user user to monetize his videos, but hasn't even silenced him. I don't know if shutting down his channel and removing all the videos (which Google has a legal right to do) would be better.

jahsome 3y ago
> Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.
- djur 3y ago
  Monetization is not a moral judgment of the content, it's a business judgment of what high-paying advertisers are willing to be associated with. There are plenty of criteria for monetization that don't have anything to do with the moral value of the content.
  - jahsome 3y ago
    But they're still running ads on the content, associating the content with advertisers. It's not "saving" their customers (advertisers). It's denying wages to the producer. I can't see it as anything other than virtue signaling, coupled with a profit.
    - djur 3y ago
      Advertisers get to choose whether their ads run on "limited ads" videos or not.

SR2Z 3y ago

They're saying "we won't silence you, but we're not hosting your video for free or paying you for this shit either." It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always request to have it taken down.

jsiepkes 3y ago
You seriously think the amount of money YouTube makes from ads on those videos is not a magnitude it costs them to host them?
- swores 3y ago
  Since they didn't say that, no they probably don't think that. Just like me saying "I don't work for free" doesn't imply I think that my salary is also the exact net cost I have as expenditure for doing the work.
  - jsiepkes 3y ago
    Then why dispute YouTube is profiting from videos they themselves classify as harmful?
    - swores 3y ago
      They didn't dispute that, they suggested a line of logic for the behaviour. It being a reply to your comment doesn't automatically mean it's an attempt to prove your comment wrong.