61–70 of 140 posts
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.
This is such a manufactured controversy. Most modern advertisements are based around audience rather than content. If brands are so uncomfortable with the content their customers are consuming perhaps they should consider either new customers or new products.
On that note, how much neo-nazi propaganda would I have to watch in order for advertisers to avoid me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it "distinctly different"? The fact that you "lost the battle" to define it rigidly usually means that you couldn't provide a sufficiently compelling argument that it should have been. For instance, if the state, through asymmetric regulation, allows a platform to become a monopoly, and the platform engages in political censorship, then it IS government sponsored. It's stupid to restrict your definitions by in…
It is distinctly different because the government can fine me or imprison me if I violate their legal proscriptions. I can't opt out of those restrictions. If Google blocks my content or otherwise refuses to host my content I have lots of other options. Your assertion that Google is a monopoly is this regard is not accurate.
So basically your "imprisonment" qualification on the definition of censorship is completely arbitrary and does not stand up to critical scrutiny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
A few hours on the phone with their Indian tech support got me only false promises of call backs and refunds.
I'm unable to reach intelligent/useful person at google adwords tech support. Which is terrible, because I think that's where most of their revenue comes from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal). So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.
Who said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions. Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about. I'm just arguing for clarit…
What I do care about is the idea behind censorship. I will not engage you in any conversation in which you try to use the definition to argue against the point I made.
So if you would like to have a discussion about the ideas behind censorship and why the worry is valid for these large websites such as FB and Youtube, I'm all for it.
But if you're going to repeat that the definition of the word precludes anything but governments, then I'm not interested.
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.
Website where I can tell that my neighboor is driving BMW, is single and looking for a new house, preferably penthouse with the mandatory view on the lake. So that once ad agency crunch this info, I will eventually benefit when my neighboor clicks some link for advertiser who offered a housing listings that match his preferences 99%
Even if 1 cent per click, I take it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> editorial control exercised by private entities. I would agree with you, but Youtube isn't a place where 'editorial' happens. Youtube isn't a TV channel or a blog with a set of editors. It's a free-for-all place for hosting videos. While I have no problem with Youtube removing content they don't like (it's their website, they're free to do what they like), it does go further than exercising 'editorial control'
Choosing what you publish on your platform based on your own content preferences is exactly editorial control.