Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

righteousruminations.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#51

Post by rtpg »

gcb0 wrote: post #3
jasonkostempski wrote: post #2

Here's an idea, advertisers directly pay the content creators they don't have a problem with to show ads natively in their content at a point they both agree is acceptable. And there could be a contract between the 2 parties that covers any concerns either might have.

But... But... I want to advertise for peanuts. I don't want to pay premium publisher prices! Give me premium content around my ads for free! now! /sarcasm. This is a solved problem. The only people complaining are the ones that want the cake and eat it too. There is Zero opportunity here. Because 100% of your market is already served by premium publishers.

OK so now content creators have to go out there and get ads from companies.

Or... they'll find some ad aggregator, and you're basically back to step one!

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#52

Post by nemothekid »

cortesoft wrote: post #23
DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

No, but they aren't doing anything to suppress the video, they are just refusing to host it. If you expand the definition of censorship to anyone who refuses to host a specific piece of content, then it basically loses all meaning. The New York Times is censoring me by not publishing my article. This science journal is censoring me by not publishing my paper.

YouTube isn't refusing to host the videos - advertisers just aren't paying as much for that sort of content.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#54

Post by Buge »

naaaaak wrote: post #38
DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

> for being politically too extreme YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News. Google's News tab now promotes tmz, the onion, and buzzfeed as "news" over sites that actually break news and typically go against the "narrative". http://i.magaimg.net/img/co6.jpg There's a reason I'm dropping all Google products and services from my life.

Did you actually try those searches in that screenshot? I get results when I try them.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#55

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #36
gwright wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments a…

> Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. It's the original sense. > Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity, but both are censorship (and they are also similar in important ways…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#56

Post by Ronsenshi »

gwright wrote: post #19
DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments a…

I'm working in media. We call editorial control "self-censorship".

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#57

Post by thanksgiving »

rtpg wrote: post #51
gcb0 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But... But... I want to advertise for peanuts. I don't want to pay premium publisher prices! Give me premium content around my ads for free! now! /sarcasm. This is a solved problem. The only people complaining are the ones that want the cake and eat it too. There is Zero opportunity here. Because 100% of your market is already served by premium publishers.

OK so now content creators have to go out there and get ads from companies. Or... they'll find some ad aggregator, and you're basically back to step one!

Maybe you ought to be able to say "I only want to bid on PewDiePie videos​" or a whitelist of approved channels. Is that possible now?

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#60

Post by onion2k »

DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

Censorship is the suppression of content in order to exercise political power and control. Refusing to show something because it means you'll make less profit is not censorship; refusing to show it because you have an ideological belief that the viewer shouldn't see it is. Consequently I guess it'd be next to impossible to demonstrate a business is actually censoring content rather than removing it for the benefit of the business.

The end result is the same regardless of what you call it though. That's what needs to be addressed.

Post reply on HN