7 ms·

Don't care for the guy but I believe bad people should be allowed to make money. I have an issue with advertisers bullying platforms to remove bad guys, but th

Don't care for the guy but I believe bad people should be allowed to make money. I have an issue with advertisers bullying platforms to remove bad guys, but that's the way it works.

webdood90 3y ago
> I believe bad people should be allowed to make money yeah, misleading people on the internet is big business
- wand3r 3y ago
  > yeah, misleading people on the internet is big business So what? In America, unless you violate FDA or SEC (or similar) agencies, or are slandering or libelling, its not illegal. Also, who is the arbiter of what is "true" in your comment above? Not everything has a fact based logical answer that is generally accepted. Should pastors be kicked off YT for "misleading" people about heaven? Free speech protects EVERYONE's right to speak because from someone else's point of view, you are the one that is misleading someone. Also, in terms of Brand, or other cases, an allegation can be settled in many courts. Once adjudicated, it is appropriate to consider action.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    How do you feel about Purdue Pharma and the opioid epidemic?
    - wand3r 3y ago
      I was personally affected and have a very nuanced thoughts about this and policy generally. However, they are not outside the spirit of what I said above? Purdue did run afoul of FDA guidelines. Regardless, US drug policy is very broken.
  - webdood90 3y ago
    > So what? if you're asking this question then we don't have anything to talk about
    - wand3r 3y ago
      I'm being flippant but I stand by my point. I think your line of thinking is what leads to things like the DSA in Europe. Laws already exist so when you say "bad people" who are you referring to? People breaking laws but they haven't been charged? Or people you personally are defining as morally bad?
swatcoder 3y ago
It's reasonable for advertisers to care about where their ads appear and what content they're associated with. It's been part of placement strategy for as long as modern advertising has existed. Magazines/broadcasts/websites naturally need to be sensitive to that because advertisers are ultimately their clients. It's far less reasonable for governments to use their authority to intervene between those parties, at least without clear legal justification and prior exercise of due process.
- coldacid 3y ago
  This is why the value4value model is morally superior to the advertisement financed model.
  - samketchup 3y ago
    In the morning to ya!
    - underseacables 3y ago
      Is this a No Agenda reference on Hacker News!?
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  I don't associate companies with whatever random things their ads appear next to, I don't even remember it. I'm pretty sure this is also true for 99.9% of other people. This brand safety stuff is just an excuse for woke marketing staffers to feel like they're "making a difference" by attacking people and companies they don't like.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > This brand safety stuff is just an excuse for woke marketing staffers to feel like they're "making a difference" The incentive structures are clear: you do nothing and maybe get fired if your company gets embroiled in a controversy due to the placement of those ads, or you pull your ads and spend that budget in another channel, and worse case nothing will happen to you, and best case you'll be praised for proactive thinking. Woke or not, I'd imagine most people would choose the latter; the former is mostly downside with limited upside.
cactusplant7374 3y ago
Are you saying YouTube is a public utility like telephones? To me it's an application that could be replaced by another application one day. Not necessarily Rumble but maybe something else. But if you don't think it's a utility, it would be strange to believe they should be regulated like one.
- olyjohn 3y ago
  Land line telephones got replaced by cell phones. That didn't make land lines less of a utility. Anything could be replaced somewhere down the road. You don't really have a choice with regards to your YouTube usage, currently. There isn't anything near YouTube, and due to it's currently-established presence, we won't realistically see it getting replaced any time soon.
  - cactusplant7374 3y ago
    There are plenty of sites at feature parity. I don't see why anything else is relevant.
netsharc 3y ago
Would you have a problem with "Please watch this ad for samketchup's product before watching this blogger's pro-Hamas video!"? Remember, free speech means the blogger is allowed to say what they say...
- Meekro 3y ago
  Not the GP poster, but I would honestly be okay with that because I actually believe in free speech. As we discovered over the last 2 weeks, though, many colleges (including at least half of the ivy league) are also okay with pro-Hamas rallies -- not because they believe in free speech, but because they've chosen a side.
  - khazhoux 3y ago
    > As we discovered over the last 2 weeks, though, many colleges (including at least half of the ivy league) are also okay with pro-Hamas rallies -- not because they believe in free speech, but because they've chosen a side. Were the rallies actually pro-Hamas, or pro-Palestine?
    - Meekro 3y ago
      That's a fair question. I'm sure some attendees are pro-Palestine, but many of the important organizers might not be. I've seen a few things over the last 2 weeks that led me to this impression: * While speaking at an off-campus event, Cornell professor Russell Rickford described the massacre of Israelis as "exhilarating" and "energizing". You can find plenty of citations (including video) by Googling his name; most of them come from right-wing news sources, but unfortunately the liberal newspapers didn't deem this worth mentioning. * Many examples of the protesters chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Wikipedia actually has an article about this phrase, which originates from before Gaza and the West Bank were controlled by Israel. In other words, the term "Palestine" referred to something other than West Bank/Gaza when that slogan was originated. In the true meaning of that phrase, "Palestine" refers to the entire region of which modern-day Israel is a subset, and "free" means "no Israel". All of this lines up with the Hamas worldview. * Black Lives Matter tweeted a picture saying "I stand with Palestine" that had a picture of a man on a paraglider. [1] That's a reference to Hamas terrorists using paragliders to cross checkpoints at the Gaza border, and then murdering innocents (including women, children, and babies). Again, the words-as-written on that tweet just reference "Palestine" while the picture makes it perfectly clear who they really stand with. Also, I'm sorry for citing exclusively right-wing sources. I swear this really happened, and is being reported correctly here; it's just that liberal sources won't cover it. [1] https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-blm-chicago-deletes-infamous-pro-hamas-post https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-blm-chicago-deletes-i...
Clubber 3y ago
>I have an issue with advertisers bullying platforms to remove bad guys, but that's the way it works. Yes, you'd think in 2023, platform companies could just disassociate advertisers with channels rather than just kicking someone off the platform. You don't want your ads on Brand's channel? Just uncheck the "show ads on this channel" box. I'm fairly certain that's available, but companies want people completely silenced and use their advertising money as leverage to do so, which is significantly more insidious.
jmull 3y ago
> I have an issue with advertisers bullying platforms to remove bad guys If businesses don't get to decide how to spend their money on advertising, who does?

Don't care for the guy but I believe bad people should be allowed to make money. I have an issue with advertisers bullying platforms to remove bad guys, but that's the way it works.

webdood90 3y ago

> I believe bad people should be allowed to make money yeah, misleading people on the internet is big business

wand3r 3y ago
> yeah, misleading people on the internet is big business So what? In America, unless you violate FDA or SEC (or similar) agencies, or are slandering or libelling, its not illegal. Also, who is the arbiter of what is "true" in your comment above? Not everything has a fact based logical answer that is generally accepted. Should pastors be kicked off YT for "misleading" people about heaven? Free speech protects EVERYONE's right to speak because from someone else's point of view, you are the one that is misleading someone. Also, in terms of Brand, or other cases, an allegation can be settled in many courts. Once adjudicated, it is appropriate to consider action.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  How do you feel about Purdue Pharma and the opioid epidemic?
  - wand3r 3y ago
    I was personally affected and have a very nuanced thoughts about this and policy generally. However, they are not outside the spirit of what I said above? Purdue did run afoul of FDA guidelines. Regardless, US drug policy is very broken.
- webdood90 3y ago
  > So what? if you're asking this question then we don't have anything to talk about
  - wand3r 3y ago
    I'm being flippant but I stand by my point. I think your line of thinking is what leads to things like the DSA in Europe. Laws already exist so when you say "bad people" who are you referring to? People breaking laws but they haven't been charged? Or people you personally are defining as morally bad?

swatcoder 3y ago

It's reasonable for advertisers to care about where their ads appear and what content they're associated with. It's been part of placement strategy for as long as modern advertising has existed. Magazines/broadcasts/websites naturally need to be sensitive to that because advertisers are ultimately their clients. It's far less reasonable for governments to use their authority to intervene between those parties, at least without clear legal justification and prior exercise of due process.

coldacid 3y ago
This is why the value4value model is morally superior to the advertisement financed model.
- samketchup 3y ago
  In the morning to ya!
  - underseacables 3y ago
    Is this a No Agenda reference on Hacker News!?
nvm0n2 3y ago
I don't associate companies with whatever random things their ads appear next to, I don't even remember it. I'm pretty sure this is also true for 99.9% of other people. This brand safety stuff is just an excuse for woke marketing staffers to feel like they're "making a difference" by attacking people and companies they don't like.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > This brand safety stuff is just an excuse for woke marketing staffers to feel like they're "making a difference" The incentive structures are clear: you do nothing and maybe get fired if your company gets embroiled in a controversy due to the placement of those ads, or you pull your ads and spend that budget in another channel, and worse case nothing will happen to you, and best case you'll be praised for proactive thinking. Woke or not, I'd imagine most people would choose the latter; the former is mostly downside with limited upside.

cactusplant7374 3y ago

Are you saying YouTube is a public utility like telephones? To me it's an application that could be replaced by another application one day. Not necessarily Rumble but maybe something else. But if you don't think it's a utility, it would be strange to believe they should be regulated like one.

olyjohn 3y ago
Land line telephones got replaced by cell phones. That didn't make land lines less of a utility. Anything could be replaced somewhere down the road. You don't really have a choice with regards to your YouTube usage, currently. There isn't anything near YouTube, and due to it's currently-established presence, we won't realistically see it getting replaced any time soon.
- cactusplant7374 3y ago
  There are plenty of sites at feature parity. I don't see why anything else is relevant.

netsharc 3y ago

Would you have a problem with "Please watch this ad for samketchup's product before watching this blogger's pro-Hamas video!"? Remember, free speech means the blogger is allowed to say what they say...

Meekro 3y ago
Not the GP poster, but I would honestly be okay with that because I actually believe in free speech. As we discovered over the last 2 weeks, though, many colleges (including at least half of the ivy league) are also okay with pro-Hamas rallies -- not because they believe in free speech, but because they've chosen a side.
- khazhoux 3y ago
  > As we discovered over the last 2 weeks, though, many colleges (including at least half of the ivy league) are also okay with pro-Hamas rallies -- not because they believe in free speech, but because they've chosen a side. Were the rallies actually pro-Hamas, or pro-Palestine?
  - Meekro 3y ago
    That's a fair question. I'm sure some attendees are pro-Palestine, but many of the important organizers might not be. I've seen a few things over the last 2 weeks that led me to this impression: * While speaking at an off-campus event, Cornell professor Russell Rickford described the massacre of Israelis as "exhilarating" and "energizing". You can find plenty of citations (including video) by Googling his name; most of them come from right-wing news sources, but unfortunately the liberal newspapers didn't deem this worth mentioning. * Many examples of the protesters chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Wikipedia actually has an article about this phrase, which originates from before Gaza and the West Bank were controlled by Israel. In other words, the term "Palestine" referred to something other than West Bank/Gaza when that slogan was originated. In the true meaning of that phrase, "Palestine" refers to the entire region of which modern-day Israel is a subset, and "free" means "no Israel". All of this lines up with the Hamas worldview. * Black Lives Matter tweeted a picture saying "I stand with Palestine" that had a picture of a man on a paraglider. [1] That's a reference to Hamas terrorists using paragliders to cross checkpoints at the Gaza border, and then murdering innocents (including women, children, and babies). Again, the words-as-written on that tweet just reference "Palestine" while the picture makes it perfectly clear who they really stand with. Also, I'm sorry for citing exclusively right-wing sources. I swear this really happened, and is being reported correctly here; it's just that liberal sources won't cover it. [1] https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-blm-chicago-deletes-infamous-pro-hamas-post https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-blm-chicago-deletes-i...

Clubber 3y ago

>I have an issue with advertisers bullying platforms to remove bad guys, but that's the way it works. Yes, you'd think in 2023, platform companies could just disassociate advertisers with channels rather than just kicking someone off the platform. You don't want your ads on Brand's channel? Just uncheck the "show ads on this channel" box. I'm fairly certain that's available, but companies want people completely silenced and use their advertising money as leverage to do so, which is significantly more insidious.

jmull 3y ago

> I have an issue with advertisers bullying platforms to remove bad guys If businesses don't get to decide how to spend their money on advertising, who does?