5 ms·

Same here, but tbh the accusations against Brand are quite moot. Regardless of that, why is YouTube to decide and not a court of law? Of course a private platfo

Same here, but tbh the accusations against Brand are quite moot. Regardless of that, why is YouTube to decide and not a court of law? Of course a private platform can do whatever they want, but when their decision is basically the same as a court issuing fine or damages in the way it affects a person’s livelihood, shouldn’t their decisions be regulated accordingly?

watwut 3y ago
Does the same thing applies to Budweiser and everything tainted with trans when right wing machine targets them?
- ghilly 3y ago
  The backlash Budweiser got was from purchasers of its beer who were turned off by its marketing message. How is that comparable to this?
- rayiner 3y ago
  Remind me when right-wing trucking businesses refused to transport Budweiser beer because of their marketing? Or are they refusing to deliver products to Target?
  - watwut 3y ago
    The message there was "do not dare to hire trans people for even minor ads" and result is companies being more afraid to hire trans. So yeah, it was literal ce sorship. And yeah, impact on that trans woman was worst then one on Brand. That trans person was not as rich as to eat any amount of financial looses. I remember right wing leaders going really out of their way to demonize Budweiser for literally having a single video with trans person and like a can of her face. So yeah. And yes, right wing businesses refused to sell the beer and there was actual boycot. If that is ok to do because trans person was acknowledged, then yeah, youtube demonetization is equally ok.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      If Lululemon tried to market tradwife conservatism to young urban women and it backfired, would you call that censorship? Marketing is about feels and vibes and image—customers are entitled to react to that. Beer, athletic wear, etc., are image and identity-based businesses. That’s different than a trucking company, or a credit card company, or YouTube. A better example would be the Dixie Chicks boycott after the Bush comments, where major radio stations refused to play their music.
      - watwut 3y ago
        It was right wing media machine trying to punish the company. And if right wing media machine can do that, Youtube can do the exact same. The only difference is that Youtube is less hypocritical about the whole thing.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        rayiner 3y ago
        What “right wing media machine?” Obviously, conservative media is going to serve as an outlet for whatever is currently riling up conservatives. The politics is central to their business. That’s different than YouTube, which in theory is a politically neutral platform. (And note that the boycott here wasn’t even stirred up by Fox or Sinclair. Fox did a Bud Light product placement right before July 4.)
        watwut 3y ago
        It was not conservative media serving as an outlet for whatever is currently riling up conservatives. It was few conservative personalities creating issue, riling up conservatives and generally trying to create outrage and fear. That is about it. So, you know, the same people can stuff themselves with complains about YouTube. YouTube is at least honest and not pretending that somehow situation is something it is not.

watwut 3y ago

Does the same thing applies to Budweiser and everything tainted with trans when right wing machine targets them?

ghilly 3y ago
The backlash Budweiser got was from purchasers of its beer who were turned off by its marketing message. How is that comparable to this?
rayiner 3y ago
Remind me when right-wing trucking businesses refused to transport Budweiser beer because of their marketing? Or are they refusing to deliver products to Target?
- watwut 3y ago
  The message there was "do not dare to hire trans people for even minor ads" and result is companies being more afraid to hire trans. So yeah, it was literal ce sorship. And yeah, impact on that trans woman was worst then one on Brand. That trans person was not as rich as to eat any amount of financial looses. I remember right wing leaders going really out of their way to demonize Budweiser for literally having a single video with trans person and like a can of her face. So yeah. And yes, right wing businesses refused to sell the beer and there was actual boycot. If that is ok to do because trans person was acknowledged, then yeah, youtube demonetization is equally ok.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    If Lululemon tried to market tradwife conservatism to young urban women and it backfired, would you call that censorship? Marketing is about feels and vibes and image—customers are entitled to react to that. Beer, athletic wear, etc., are image and identity-based businesses. That’s different than a trucking company, or a credit card company, or YouTube. A better example would be the Dixie Chicks boycott after the Bush comments, where major radio stations refused to play their music.
    - watwut 3y ago
      It was right wing media machine trying to punish the company. And if right wing media machine can do that, Youtube can do the exact same. The only difference is that Youtube is less hypocritical about the whole thing.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 3y ago
        What “right wing media machine?” Obviously, conservative media is going to serve as an outlet for whatever is currently riling up conservatives. The politics is central to their business. That’s different than YouTube, which in theory is a politically neutral platform. (And note that the boycott here wasn’t even stirred up by Fox or Sinclair. Fox did a Bud Light product placement right before July 4.)
        watwut 3y ago
        It was not conservative media serving as an outlet for whatever is currently riling up conservatives. It was few conservative personalities creating issue, riling up conservatives and generally trying to create outrage and fear. That is about it. So, you know, the same people can stuff themselves with complains about YouTube. YouTube is at least honest and not pretending that somehow situation is something it is not.