741–750 of 1001 posts
> “If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community,” the spokeswoman said. Putting aside the validity of the accusations—let's say he did everything he's accused of, for the sake of argument—is Youtube alleging that he assaulted Youtube employees, app developers who use the Youtube ecosystem, or Youtube users? I assume the latter. But the thing is,…
It's a telling sign really. For everybody in here who is building a startup and is unsure about going tpe to toe with a tech giant. Do not be intimidated, these big organizations are afraid of everything . Favorable press and 'feel good statements' like this become more important than making money. This is true for companies buying ads too, the big automotive companies would absolutely make a fortune both in terms of…
ah, the classic car-companies-dont-allow-officially-licensed-cars-in-old-violent-videogame argument for entrepreneurship. tough to argue with!
Automotive companies choose to license their cars in racing games like Forza or Gran Turismo for several reasons, while being more hesitant about the Grand Theft Auto series:
1. *Positive Representation*: Racing games are primarily about the celebration of cars, driving, and motorsport. Cars are shown in a positive light, focusing on their performance, design, and history. This aligns well with the image that car manufacturers wish to project.
2. *Brand Image*: Grand Theft Auto, while immensely popular, has themes of crime, violence, and other mature content. Car manufacturers might be hesitant about associating their brands with such content.
3. *Damage and Misuse*: In the GTA series, vehicles can be stolen, damaged extensively, used in criminal activities, or even destroyed. Such depictions might be unappealing to car manufacturers who want to maintain a certain prestige or image for their vehicles.
4. *Target Audience*: Racing games appeal to car enthusiasts and people interested in the automotive world, making them a fitting platform for car manufacturers to showcase their vehicles.
5. *Historical Precedence*: Racing games have a long history of featuring licensed cars, dating back many years. This has established a tradition and trust between game developers and car manufacturers.
6. *Feedback from Fans*: Fans of racing games often expect and appreciate the realism that comes with using licensed cars, whereas the GTA audience might not prioritize this as much.
While the potential exposure in a game like GTA might be vast, automotive companies must weigh the benefits against the possible damage to their brand image.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YT most certainly runs ads against demonetized content. They just don't share in the take with the creator. What a principled stance... "I will make even more money because you did something bad somewhere else!"
That's not how any of this works. 1. YouTube can show ads BETWEEN videos and keep 100% of the money. 2. YouTube runs ads WITHIN videos if owner "monetizes", and shares the profit. 3. Creators run "promotions" within their videos and keep 100% of the money. They only stopped #2. Both YouTube and Brand are still both making money off brands videos on YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlikely, since uploaders don't really have a contractual relationship with YouTube. Platform operators can just arbitrarily kick people off with no recourse or accountability or even a clear explanation. There's no workaround for this except through regulation, aka government overreach into the free market destroying jobs and freedoms (as objections are usually phrased).
Small nit: YouTube has to adhere to it’s Terms of Service and any other “click to agree” policies. However, those documents and policies are incredibly broad like you mentioned.
Which say very clearly that they can kick you off at any time for any reason, similar to those “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” (unless the reason is racism, religion and other protected categories)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He pulled an Elon. Elon Musk also came out as an alt-right troll when he was tipped that an expose about sexual harassment of a flight attendant was coming his way.
It's a point of no return. They know they'll never be accepted in polite company again, so they go rude.
The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.
I use Yandex. Google results are actively and overly censored and manipulated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Yandex. Google results are actively and overly censored and manipulated.
Ah, finally a trustworthy unmanipulated search engine coming from an honest uncensored country.
Let's say I wanted to search for pictures of Ellen Page, which do you think gives more accurate results for the query?
The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.
vernacular such as "unalived" is specifically to get around youtube's content policing.
Huge opportunity for X to continue to become the safe haven for "cancelled" content. Tucker Carlson, etc.
Perhaps a moral opportunity if you believe that people credibly accused of and under investigation for rape (Brand) or spreading white supremacist dog whistle conspiracy theories (Carlson) is a moral imperative. Not such a great opportunity when you consider that the audience for this sort of content is poorly-educated, credulous, reactionary, and anathema to advertisers who can actually support the businesses behind…