211–220 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What YouTube has created is a direct consequence of the structural incentives of the civil justice system which reflects it's practical outcomes quite well.
Civil justice = mob justice. Combine that with the fact that the group in charge of moderation is likely to be extremely biased, simply by being Google employees, this is hardly any justice at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife runs a "mom vlog" mostly recipes, lifestyle things, how tos, etc. Since late October her content is regularly demonetized with no indications as to what's wrong. Her content is literally some of the most desirable, adfriendly content on YouTube. No idea why they don't have a whitelist for channels with 10 years of a spotless record.
> No idea why they don't have a whitelist for channels with 10 years of a spotless record. Give it 30 seconds of thought, and it'll be blindingly obvious. "Google/Alphabet doesnt have to pay them for the content now." My question, why do they keep using a platform that's screwing them over? Yippee: -3. Evidently stating the emperors new clothes are his birthday suit is bad/wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Google/Alphabet doesnt have to pay them for the content now." When a video is demonetized, only a small subset of advertisers or no advertisers can be shown on that video. If no ads are being shown then neither Google nor the creator are making money (and Google is spending money to host and serve the content), so really this is a lose/lose for both of them.
Yes, and demonetized also de-indexes from search and hides the video unless directly shared. AvE has been dealing with this very issue, where he'd upload a new vid, and within an hour, demonetized. It would within 1 day go unindexed. And for those who don't know, the first 48 hours is when most views come in. So, no ads = no money. He figured out if you make the video unindexed, then it would be demonet'ed. Then he w…
The thing I really, really don't get about modern media companies (IE. YouTube, Facebook, etc.) and their approach to advertising is their almost universally puritanical policies. I mean I get it to a point, they're trying to mitigate the risks of someone getting offended and suing them or something, but at the same time its such a lazy and one size fits all approach. They have all this data about people, yet they're…
I'm having a bit of trouble with the idea that something that is generating around $80 000 000 000 per year revenue and has been growing ~20% per year for the last several years is not something that "actually works".
I have a feeling that the internet will get outraged about this for one reason or another, but just from looking at this, it actually seems like a sensible policy designed to keep YouTube out of trouble. Nothing extreme or unfair, just avoiding to show ads next to stuff advertisers would not want to see their ads next to, while also making an effort to avoid offending or censoring youtubers. Probably won't be flawles…
The real problem is the outcome. If you demonetize a video by accident, and then "fix" it, you've effectively killed up to 90% of the youtuber's income from that video. Many youtubers get most of their views within the first 48 hours of posting a video. This impacts people who post a video <1/wk the most, because one demonetized video can mean a huge hit to their monthly income. Now you're driving out higher producti…
Maybe this is real, but it doesn't seem to line up with what I have heard from other Youtubers. Firstly it is almost certain that a video is initially demonetized by an algorithm. Only during a manual review is it looked at by a human. The main complaint from Youtubers is that the algorithm is way too strict and inconsistent. But the manual review process is pretty fair and the vast majority of videos get remonetized…
> The issue here being that by the time a manual review is complete most of the views for a video have already happened. Wouldn't the solution, then, be to credit the account for the revenue generated while it was demonetized? It's not like Youtube didn't get revenue from ad impressions while the video was flagged.
The thing I really, really don't get about modern media companies (IE. YouTube, Facebook, etc.) and their approach to advertising is their almost universally puritanical policies. I mean I get it to a point, they're trying to mitigate the risks of someone getting offended and suing them or something, but at the same time its such a lazy and one size fits all approach. They have all this data about people, yet they're…
>use that data to show the right ads to the right people To expand on what you're saying here, YouTube allows offended people to bully them by contacting advertisers and saying things like, "YouTube is putting ads for your company in front of videos about hitler!!" And YouTube just immediately caves to that. YouTube's response from day one should have been, "no, we don't put ads in front of videos, that's not how thi…
The demonitization policy also seems overly broad. While not wanting to display ads before literal executions makes sense, the blanket bans on profanity or use of brand names are counterproductive. People mostly watch videos from creators they like, or that are similar to videos they've watched before. That means that the content in question isn't objectionable to the viewer themselves, and won't cause them to form a negative association with the advertiser's brand. Advertisers should WANT their content to be next to content that the viewer is positively disposed to, regardless of what that content is.
The thing I really, really don't get about modern media companies (IE. YouTube, Facebook, etc.) and their approach to advertising is their almost universally puritanical policies. I mean I get it to a point, they're trying to mitigate the risks of someone getting offended and suing them or something, but at the same time its such a lazy and one size fits all approach. They have all this data about people, yet they're…
I worked as a copywriter for most of my 20s in Manhattan... have a ton of friends at all levels of the business from ad sales to OOH to Facebook.
My friends in TV ad sales always say the same thing when a company or product comes up at a party... "oh, ____ is actually a client of mine, love them, got shit faced the other week at lunch... but I don't buy their product because they're homophobes."
"What?"
"Oh, they're in my Excel sheet of companies that have requested to not be on Bravo... because of the content. too many gay dudes on shows."
I've had plenty of friends that worked in daytime and network ad sales where they literally would get an email with all the "issues" people might have with an upcoming episode of a popular show, when the issues would appear and what slots they can move the commercials into. They then spend the day calling all their advertisers and media buyers so they can go manage expectations and start moving spots around. People have no idea how much deal making has to happen with Fortune 500 company marketing departments and media agencies every time there is something 30% of this country would find offensive such as men kissing... or... men kissing... or someone saying "fuck".
Now, the people at these companies usually aren't actually homophobes... they usually just don't want to anger the far right and the groups that support their beliefs.
Then you get into the creative. I had a very popular underwear company as a client back in the day... part of every shoot was a reminder that we had to play by their rules. If there's a couple in their underwear... they have to both be wearing wedding rings because otherwise Christian groups will complain. This is common in many ads... look for the rings. We even had a Christian football star become a spokesperson for the company... but part of his contract had it so that he couldn't appear in underwear bc of his values and those of his supporters. So we put him in undershirts.
Then you have race and everything else.
But this all comes down to money and those with the money need to start flexing or support other platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>use that data to show the right ads to the right people To expand on what you're saying here, YouTube allows offended people to bully them by contacting advertisers and saying things like, "YouTube is putting ads for your company in front of videos about hitler!!" And YouTube just immediately caves to that. YouTube's response from day one should have been, "no, we don't put ads in front of videos, that's not how thi…
Based on what do you think Google is pushing off political context they do not like? We can see the screen here that there is nothing like that. Would suggest your allegation is untrue and Google is doing g nothing like you suggest and is the exact opposite.
I have a feeling that the internet will get outraged about this for one reason or another, but just from looking at this, it actually seems like a sensible policy designed to keep YouTube out of trouble. Nothing extreme or unfair, just avoiding to show ads next to stuff advertisers would not want to see their ads next to, while also making an effort to avoid offending or censoring youtubers. Probably won't be flawles…
The real problem with these rules is subjectivity. Something you would consider offensive is probably not from my perspective. In the end it will be a moderator bias galore. I can easily see a Christian mod demonetizing atheist videos, democrat republican, prude free, etc etc etc. I'd like to see a true free speech platform with violence/nudity sectioned off according to the local laws, and then let the advertisers d…
The real problem with humans is subjectivity.
> I'd like to see a true free speech platform with violence/nudity sectioned off according to the local laws, and then let the advertisers decide where they want to spend the money, instead of treating them as children who don't know better.
Build one. Good luck preventing it from going bankrupt when advertisers decide they won't spend any money on your platform.
It has been tried, this isn't any different than all the "alt-right internet" services popping up. Or 4chan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/technology/alt-right-inte...