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

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#71

Post by AnOscelot »

enraged_camel wrote: post #63
gwright wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the government censors you, you have other choices as well. You can publish your content in locations outside your government's jurisdiction. So basically your "imprisonment" qualification on the definition of censorship is completely arbitrary and does not stand up to critical scrutiny.

If your government censors you, and you break the censorship in some way, you put your own personal freedom and economic status at risk. In many countries, you put your own life at risk as well.

If Google takes down my video, and I publish it elsewhere, there's no real risk of anything. Maybe I'll lose my Google account if the video was particularly heinous, but that's about as far as it goes.

The imprisonment qualification is a very real difference.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#72

Post by naaaaak »

ac29 wrote: post #42
naaaaak wrote: post #38

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.

>YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News. I think you mean right of Fox News? Infowars is notoriously full of bullshit, and conservativetreehouse blocks google entirely [0]. [0] http://www.conservativetreehouse.com/robots.txt

No, Youtube is demonetizing anyone who disagrees with the narrative. Do you think pewdiepie is right of Fox News?

Do you think buzzfeed, printers of the 4chan fanfic "piss dossier" are not notoriously full of bullshit? Have tmz or mtv ever broken any story besides celebrity gossip? Every single "news" organization that printed fake polls for months claiming Hillary would win by huge margins is still considered "News" by Google and not demonetized by Youtube. You claim Infowars is full of shit, but they were spot on with the election coverage and calling the polls being fake and oversampled.

Why is Google's censoring of differing views tolerated?

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#73

Post by cel1ne »

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…

> Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities.

I use the following analogy for the latter: Would you call it censorship if you decide to remove the graffiti someone spraypainted on your car?

No one has the obligation to provide for unrestricted distribution of opinion/information. Especially not state-financed media, as they have a stake in education of their citizens.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#74

Post by ckastner »

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…

> It has pretty much always meant that, and just because the general sense of censorship is not something you are interested in talking about doesn't mean it's not useful.

It's certainly less useful than distinguishing between specific forms of censorship. As you concede yourself:

> Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity

The context (the article) is clearly about the latter, specific form.

Or, to expand on your example: When discussing an article about nuclear fusion, the distinction between heavy water and drinking water certainly is more useful then the observation that both are identified with the word "water".

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#75

Post by hueving »

gwright wrote: post #43
dragonwriter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm willing to concede that that 'censorship' has always been an expansive term. Perhaps my perspective is just a personal idiosyncrasy. But that is really ancillary to my point that in order to communicate clearly about the public policy issues involved it is important to avoid the generic use of the term because that obfuscates the arguments making it harder to explore the issues. In particular I think that in the…

>The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense.

The very presence of anti-censorship in the 1st amendment is the reason many people in the US get outraged when companies censor views. They view free speech as a fundamental right, even though the 1st amendment only applies to the government.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#76

Post by [deleted] »

naaaaak wrote: post #72
ac29 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News. I think you mean right of Fox News? Infowars is notoriously full of bullshit, and conservativetreehouse blocks google entirely [0]. [0] http://www.conservativetreehouse.com/robots.txt

No, Youtube is demonetizing anyone who disagrees with the narrative. Do you think pewdiepie is right of Fox News? Do you think buzzfeed, printers of the 4chan fanfic "piss dossier" are not notoriously full of bullshit? Have tmz or mtv ever broken any story besides celebrity gossip? Every single "news" organization that printed fake polls for months claiming Hillary would win by huge margins is still considered "News"…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#77

Post by thomask0 »

naaaaak wrote: post #72
ac29 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News. I think you mean right of Fox News? Infowars is notoriously full of bullshit, and conservativetreehouse blocks google entirely [0]. [0] http://www.conservativetreehouse.com/robots.txt

No, Youtube is demonetizing anyone who disagrees with the narrative. Do you think pewdiepie is right of Fox News? Do you think buzzfeed, printers of the 4chan fanfic "piss dossier" are not notoriously full of bullshit? Have tmz or mtv ever broken any story besides celebrity gossip? Every single "news" organization that printed fake polls for months claiming Hillary would win by huge margins is still considered "News"…

How were the polls fake when they were basically right? The state-polls for Wisconsin / Michigan in the end were wrong, but those states in the end were probably not polled enough to capture the volatility of unprecedented events like the Comey letter.

And FYI national polls predicted a 1-4% popular vote win, those where pretty much on the money.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#78

Post by mattmanser »

cel1ne wrote: post #73
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…

> Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. I use the following analogy for the latter: Would you call it censorship if you decide to remove the graffiti someone spraypainted on your car? No one has the obligation to provide for unrestricted distribution of opinion/information. Especially not state-financed media, as they have a stake in e…

That's a very bad analogy, you should stop.

The message of the grafitti is not what people care about, it's that it was painted in the first place.

Your analogy only works if you have a big sign outside your house saying "Please paint my car".

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#79

Post by Udo »

> 1. A smarter advertising-based model.

That would be the wrong lesson to take away here. By and large, ads are a scam on many levels, and it's not at all clear how that could change. Individual deals between content producers and companies seem like the sanest alternative, but it's obvious how that's not an option for the internet at large.

> 2. A model that does not rely on advertising.

Ads are a symptom of what brought non-corporate Youtube content down, but it's not the root cause. Youtube and its parent company will always be susceptible to repeats and variations of the WSJ attack, and Youtube didn't exactly have a respectful relationship with their content creators to begin with. "Controversial" content such as LGBT-focused videos doesn't just get less ads, it gets suppressed by YT in other ways designed to prevent discoverability.

Siloization is the disease.

Any crisis is an opportunity for startups. The larger point here is a wakeup call about the structure of the web. There are still opportunities to change this, but companies and governments are fast at work changing that. The time would be now.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#80

Post by jlebrech »

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.

but if there was a right leaning "youtube" and they removed overt-lgbt, antifa, anti-trump videos then it's ok right? or is it wrong because they align with the current us-government?
Post reply on HN