351–360 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not apologism, that's realpolitik. It doesn't mean the deed is acceptable, but that people in power should've anticipated it.
I don't think 'entitled people will come and shoot at our employees' is something that any normal business should have to plan for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not apologism, that's realpolitik. It doesn't mean the deed is acceptable, but that people in power should've anticipated it.
I don't think 'entitled people will come and shoot at our employees' is something that any normal business should have to plan for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could argue that since Youtube has created a public forum for others to work in, they should be held to different standards than a regular private company. I.e. Youtube should be regulated as infrastructure and thus can not longer unilaterally changes rules or make judgements based on those rules.
You can't be serious. Youtube is not infrastructure; if you don't like their policies, use a different service. Start a competitor. You pay the server time.
Watch me.
> use a different service
What service is there for video creators that has a similar reach? In terms of short internet video, Youtube is a de facto monopoly. Moving to other platforms means giving up basically your entire viewership. Realistically, there is currently no "different service".
> Start a competitor
Now, it's up to me to say "you can't be serious". That's not really an option for somebody who makes a living with videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically every company who has ever laid off or fired an employee should expect at some point to fall victim to a mass shooting?
I'm not saying that they would deserve it. If a company algorithmically fired portions of their workforce every day without even talking to those employees or giving them a chance to appeal, then I would expect something terrible to eventually happen. I would expect that eventually an employee would snap under the injustice of the situation and commit a mass shooting, just like eventually an employee would commit sui…
Ad money provides an incentive to make money, encouraging you to post some video. It isn't exactly a salary paying thing like a job.
Sure every once in a while some kid could become a millionaire posting reviews on toys. That rarely means everybody can or must.
Its also in a way the plight of so many street performers and musicians. When you go to Pier 39 in San Francisco, many performers are on the verge of begging for tips. People don't understand the concept of paying for content, and most of it works like 'Bystander effect'- If I'm not paying may be somebody else is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an American. The fact that a targeted online advertisement shown before the video is associated with the video and not with the platform, and requires damage control is perplexing and unexplainable to me... "There is no direct relationship between the video and the ad - It's matched by the machinery to the viewer, not to the video." should be the official answer and the end of the story. Is an ad exposure bef…
Here's the rationale: The advertisement pays for the video. Without the ads to provide money for a given type of video, there will be less of them and they will be less sophisticated. Thus, whether an advertiser likes it or not, they are supporting the video content, albeit indirectly. Also, I don't think advertisers care at all to engage in moralistic or political policing of content. They just want to sell stuff. B…
Advertisers pay for ad exposures on this platfrom, not for the video. The fact that some money goes not only for infrastructure but also to the creators, should be considered just a side effect of the need to increase viewcounts, and as a result ad exposures. Any attempt to associate particuilar algorithmically matched ads to videos and vice versa should be considered as a powergrab and an attempt at speech policing, IMO. Which is exactly what media fishing for unsightly associations is doing.
>Being associated with controversial content offends people, which drives away what could otherwise be good paying customers.
I doubt that a controversial video after youtube ads has any significant effect on driving away or attracting paying customers. Your statement requires proof. If viewers willingly choose to watch a video with a controversial topic, it's their choice, and their taste. As for media fishing expeditions "this company's algorithmically matched ad was shown before this controversial video" -- I doubt anyone reads or takes this seriously. At least at youtube video scale.
>Also, I don't think advertisers care at all to engage in moralistic or political policing of content.
Are you telling me people don't want power? Are you telling me ad and silicon valley companies workforce are not all elite college educated and espause particular political views? Are you telling me humanities departments are not basically training political activists?
Americans in the comment section are reacting about this woman being a disgruntled user, angry about perceived discrimination from Youtube, down on her luck, suicidal. Me, a european, I'm reacting to how easily she found a gun. I hate to bring up this very toxic debate, my comment will seem like fishing for trouble. Yet you have to understand our perspective. Not every lunatic where I live can find a gun when they ne…
I would be really interested to see statistics about this. I hypothesize that the prevalence of "violent lunatics" is a bigger factor than availability of weapons, i.e. that the US just has more of these people than other places due to something in the media and culture. In other words, if availability of guns were really the most important factor, then wouldn't we expect Europe to have a similar number of attacks bu…
Depending on how you count, here's some support for this (argument against at the end):
A number of European countries has or has had large numbers of actual assault rifles (not the semi automatic ones that are legal in USA) distributed in the population.
Switzerland, Austria and Norway are three countries I know have or have had this.
Neither has had this school/church/mall shooting thing that USA has.
On the other hand these weapons weren't sold, they were distributed only after mandatory training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as a 'pro Youtuber'. That's about as silly as being a 'pro Mediumer'. There is such a thing as a professional blogger but they treat the thing as an actual business: with as much control over hosting and content delivery as they can get. The moment you use a third party service as the key component of your business you lose your 'pro' status.
>The moment you use a third party service as the key component of your business you lose your 'pro' status. That's ridiculous on any number of levels. Are Pro hockey players not pro because they don't own their teams? Are salespeople not professional because they use SFDC as SaaS instead of their own handcrafted CRM? Hell, are devs not pros if they use GitHub, AWS, or GCP?
Yes, if you draw it wider than I intended to it is. After all I clearly meant within the context of creating and delivering content to an audience. If that is your business you operate at the whims of the owners of the network.
> Are Pro hockey players not pro because they don't own their teams?
I never really got 'professional sports' so I'm not going to be the right person to comment on that. To me a sport is something to be enjoyed, not something to be made into a profession though it is clear that lots of people do just that. Even so, they are not - to me - as much of a professional as say a car mechanic, a musician or a computer programmer would be. If professional sports would disappear tomorrow I wouldn't miss it, but I totally realize I'm in the minority here.
> Are salespeople not professional because they use SFDC as SaaS instead of their own handcrafted CRM?
They would be unprofessional if they did not plan for outages, being kicked off the service and potential bankruptcies of the SaaS providers. Or at least, the organization they are part of would not be professional.
> Hell, are devs not pros if they use GitHub, AWS, or GCP?
If they make themselves totally dependent on any of those, then yes, they are not pros.
A real business should do the best it can to be an independent entity and should only enter into dependencies after well reasoned out weighing of pros and cons and backup services and options where possible.
Otherwise you will find that that business will sooner or later crash due to some outside influence.
Now obviously there are some risks that you can not protect against: wars, 'acts of god' (a cop-out to mean anything we can imagine that's out of scope), wholesale market downturn and so on. But a simple account termination should not be able to kill a healthy business.
'De-Monetized' suggests that someone who produces a video has an automatic right to income. That's bonkers, it's already quite a service that Youtube allows you to upload your videos to reach an audience that you'd be hard pressed to serve from your own server. They do this for free. In the previous iteration of such platforms all the ad income would go to the owner of the website, not to the rights owners of the vid…
I feel like there are a lot of parallels between these "private" web services that are extremely dominant, and the "company towns" of previous decades/centuries. Workers didn't have a right to dictate what the town could and couldn't do, and if they were fired or felt they weren't getting enough pay they could always pack up and move to a new town or found their own city with their own money like a good bootstrappy e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It couldn't take place in Europe.
I know little about European courts, so I'll just take you at your word. I'm not sure how this observation is relevant to the discussion.