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

Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

autostraddle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#51

Post by pavel_lishin »

webkike wrote: post #50
caseysoftware wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, this is the natural consequence of our current political climate. When you offend [group X] and they go after your advertisers, it's effective. Advertisers naturally say "I don't want to be associated with anything/anyone controversial, so let's exclude those!" The problem is that most things are "controversial" to some group.. therefore, large swaths of content are no longer "advertiser appropriate" a…

The number one YouTube channel in size by subscribers, PewDiePie, said the N word live on stream and his fan base essentially attacked people who came out as offended. I love the part of YouTube that gives you an incredibly personal insight on intelligent people, but I think there is a huge problem with how much leeway the content creators have and are still able to make money. And the fact that this harms the smalle…

I think it should be made clear that he didn't just say "nigger"; he actually called someone that.

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#52

Post by pavel_lishin »

polishTar wrote: post #45
klodolph wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is fuzzy and based on machine learning, because Google are strong believers of machine learning. It seems like YouTube must be backed into a corner where that's the only feasible way to do it, at least as a first pass. Video is uploaded at what, 5000x realtime? Or 100 years of video per week?

>400 hrs of content are uploaded every minute. You’re exactly correct that an algorithmic first pass is the only thing that’s feasible. It’s important to mention that creators can appeal monitization decisions to a human reviewer for videos with at least a thousand views.

I'd love to see how many minutes of video-with-1000+-views gets uploaded per minute.

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#53

Post by dahdum »

jgrowl wrote: post #30

I thought it was just as simple as the fact that the big companies don't want to advertise their products on "controversial" videos... which are defined very loosely based on key words. For example if you make something like a rape surviver support video and include 'rape' in the description. I can see why advertisers would not want to risk hurting their brand by playing before a video that is anyway offensive to any…

It was less of a problem a few years ago, before groups started claiming that Google & advertisers were explicitly supporting / promoting controversial content. With the PR fear in full swing, there is very little upside to either party allowing advertising.

For example, groups were actively hitting the top commercial websites and then visiting Breitbart so they could screenshot retargeting ads to use in shaming the company on social media.

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#54

Post by 1337biz »

ouid wrote: post #38
1337biz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'But it's the algorithm' has become the new 'but I am a comedian, what kind of a fool are you to take my political propaganda serious' defense.

He says, trying to make a humorous analogy to further his political ideals.

I remember that from some Jon Stewart vs Bill O'Reilly discussion, where Stewards basic argument was: 'But I am running a joke show, haha'.

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#55

Post by lkrubner »

Does anyone know why this article would disappear from the front page of Hacker News? Right now, some of the articles on the front page:

this one:

46 points

50 comments

1 hour old

A 1979 War-Game That Takes 1,500 Hours to Complete

31 points

11 comments

3 hours old

LeakyX, a vulnerability that Apple and Microsoft have known about for years

30 points

12 comments

1 hour old

Artificial ‘skin’ gives robotic hand a sense of touch

20 points

0 comments

7 hours ago

There are several articles with less points and less comments and which are either the same age are older, yet they are on the front page. Does anyone understand the algorithm?

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#56

Post by dang »

huffmsa wrote: post #11
fjert wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am willing to wager that more action will be seen with regards to LGBTQ channels being demonetized than conservative channels. Google never really tried to hide their left leaning biases.

Well no, they fired a guy just for saying that the company is a hug box, with the note "you're not allowed in our hug box."

Would you please stop posting inflammatory comments about divisive topics (regardless of how strongly you feel or how wrong someone else is)? We ban accounts that do that repeatedly on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#57

Post by indubitable »

kasajian wrote: post #44

Content providers think they want their videos to stay monetized, but I don't think they don't. With regard to monetizing videos, am I totally wrong to assume that this is entirely based on what advertisers are willing to sponsor? So if company A decides, for whatever reason, they don't want to pay for ads on videos that talk about some subject that they don't agree with, I think we can all agree that they should hav…

I think what you're saying explains the situation quite concisely.

It seems that it would be somewhat difficult to argue that advertisers truly care where their ads are placed in terms of moral values. There's no shortage of western companies setup and advertising in places like Saudi Arabia/Belarus/etc. If there was any money to be made in North Korea and they were allowed, there's every reason to believe that there'd be McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner.

However, the whole point of advertising is to positively influence the population regarding your product's brand. If an advertiser's ads are shown on something that's domestically controversial and the face a social backlash, well that's a complete waste of money. And even if an advertiser chooses to pull their advertising from something some group found controversial not only does it rarely appease the offended group, but it's increasingly likely in today's society that another group will counterprotest - again resulting in brand damage and a complete waste of money.

The only completely economically safe path is to restrict your ads to the most neutral, neutered, and completely inoffensive content possible. Well, at least unless the target is large enough - in which case the brand image gained from that viewership will likely dwarf any sort of brand damage from people protesting against it. And this seems to be, in a nutshell, the solution that YouTube and advertisers are choosing. For that matter it could even go some way to explaining the increasing sterilization of things like mass entertainment.

We did this to ourselves. We, as a culture, are simultaneously becoming increasingly intolerant and turning politics into a team sport - quick to finger "allies" and "enemies" alike. People, and companies, who choose to choose no side are left walking on egg shells for fear of being damned or claimed by one side or the other. Read, for instance, the entry on 'gun controversy' relating to Starbucks [1]. This is the no-win situation we're putting companies in today. It sucks.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Gun_controversy

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#58

Post by krapp »

pavlov wrote: post #48
caseysoftware wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, this is the natural consequence of our current political climate. When you offend [group X] and they go after your advertisers, it's effective. Advertisers naturally say "I don't want to be associated with anything/anyone controversial, so let's exclude those!" The problem is that most things are "controversial" to some group.. therefore, large swaths of content are no longer "advertiser appropriate" a…

This is a positive development if it forces content creators to look for platforms that are not ad-funded, and thus precipitates the death of the publisher business model that is beholden to advertisers. Hopefully in 20 years we can look back and say that Facebook was the last major corporation to be built on ad revenue.

Why, why hasn't Pornhub or anyone else capitalized on this yet?

I mention Pornhub specifically because people seem to use them as a goto for posting uncensored not-necessarily pornographic content, but clearly Google's policies are creating an opportunity for a competitor to take in all of the content they no longer want.

I know there are a ton of streaming sites out there but no one seems to be positioning themselves (as far as I can tell) as, specifically, an adult (but not necessarily adult) alternative to Youtube?

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#59

Post by Yetanfou »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #51
webkike wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number one YouTube channel in size by subscribers, PewDiePie, said the N word live on stream and his fan base essentially attacked people who came out as offended. I love the part of YouTube that gives you an incredibly personal insight on intelligent people, but I think there is a huge problem with how much leeway the content creators have and are still able to make money. And the fact that this harms the smalle…

I think it should be made clear that he didn't just say "nigger"; he actually called someone that.

Well, listen to a few rap tracks and you'll hear many, many people being called that, loudly, clearly, repeatedly.

Re: Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos?

#60

Post by pavel_lishin »

Yetanfou wrote: post #59
pavel_lishin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should be made clear that he didn't just say "nigger"; he actually called someone that.

Well, listen to a few rap tracks and you'll hear many, many people being called that, loudly, clearly, repeatedly.

You're being downvoted because you're completely deaf to context.
Post reply on HN