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

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#91

Post by croon »

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…

I'll try another one.

It's more like you having a potluck, or cook-off, meaning anyone can come and join and contribute food.

But then someone prepares Surströmming, Hákarl or Shiokara, which is technically food (content) that someone might like. It will now smell all over your potluck and have a detrimental effect on peoples view of it. You have previously reserved the right to turn away participants, and you exercise that right.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#92

Post by beaconstudios »

jlebrech wrote: post #88
beaconstudios wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is in the messaging. YouTube isn't "YouTube for the left wing", it doesn't advertise itself as being hostile to certain opinions. You could argue that the terms of service denote that "offensive" content is not allowed, but something being offensive is a subjective opinion. And then there's the issue of selective enforcement of things that _are_ banned. In other words, if a site was called "Conserva…

but if it's offensive to someone on the biblebelt, it's offensive right?

you could argue the same for san francisco liberals.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#93

Post by Neliquat »

beachy wrote: post #26
cortesoft wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that Youtube's position is that they will host anything, of any quality, unless it crosses one of their red lines. Whereas NYT will only publish stuff of high quality.

>Whereas NYT will only publish stuff of high quality

You made me spit coffee.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#94

Post by Neliquat »

beaconstudios wrote: post #92
jlebrech wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but if it's offensive to someone on the biblebelt, it's offensive right?

you could argue the same for san francisco liberals.

Odd how the 2 groups have become so similar as of late.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#95

Post by mtgx »

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…

So what do you call it when the governments ask companies like Google and Facebook to "volunteer" (or else) to do censorship - and the companies do exactly that?

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#96

Post by r_smart »

hueving wrote: post #75
gwright wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first amendment only applies to the government, but it elucidates a natural right all people have, and thus forbids the government from tampering with it. Other people should also not tamper with it, but enforcing that is beyond the scope of the first amendment.

Free speech is a fundamental right, which is why every Western democracy at least pays lip service to the idea.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#97

Post by etherealG »

geff82 wrote: post #89

I think there still is a big opportunity for ad companies that try to actually show stuff the user might interested in. Let me explain. Let's say you are an amateur astronomer, like me. You have subscribed to a paper magazine about astronomy, like me. If, again, you are like me, then you also read the magazine for the ads in it. Ads showing new telescopes, ads talking about astronomy expeditions, ads for the astronom…

I think you're missing the point of how current targeted advertising works. The person paying for the advertising is the one choosing when/where to show it to you. They are intentionally getting in your way with something irrelevant, since it suits their campaign goals.

What you describe is a system where the consumer has control over how they are advertised to, but that only works when you are the one with power in the situation. If you use a service for free, like a website, your eyeballs are the service being sold, and the advertiser is going to utilise that service in his interest. That includes putting ads you "don't like" in front of you, that actually do influence your chances of buying that product, on average, in an upward trend.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#98

Post by etherealG »

jsonne wrote: post #29

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.

you're wrong, advertising targeting factors both these things.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#99

Post by Neliquat »

kazagistar wrote: post #61
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.

Juding from all the shitty loot box opening videos or whatever, this is already happening to anyone willing to shill on the cheap.

Yuuuup. I think this year has been the worst. Unsubbed almost a third of my tech and maker channels because they became 20 minute mikita ads. Look what chinese crap they sent me! Any review of a product you did not pay for is worth what you paid, because someone else paid for it.

Much respect for the vloggers and content creators who have respect for their audience and avoid shilling. And even more respect for makers making things and not more goddamn fidget toys.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#100

Post by Androider »

thanksgiving wrote: post #57
rtpg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That would be fantastic. Like another post in the thread mentioned, if I'm selling telescopes I'd only want to show those ads in front of astronomy videos. Being able to whitelist specific channels (say, DeepSkyVideos and 60 Symbols) or even videos would open up a whole new long tail ad market and allow very low friction "partnering" between content creators and relevant advertisers.
Post reply on HN