I’m really disappointed to see people I used to respect try to make this situation something it’s clearly not.
So if you haven’t heard youtube has been demonetizing videos to make things more advertiser friendly…
You hear that Thunderf00t? Advertiser friendly, not because of some nonsensical SJW conspiracy, I know your mother must have told you that you’re special as a child, but this the real world, not every incident is caused by the invisible bogeymen that you have convinced yourself that exist.
Though I have to give credit to people who have managed to not spin the news to their benefit.
Censorship is obviously too strong a word for what is happening; however one must consider the financial incentive. It isn’t a very strong influence; but it is an influence just the same. I wonder how many will change their content; if there isn’t much chance of being compensated for it.
There isn’t a more evil industry than advertising. They literally use psychology to trick people into buying things that they really don’t need or even want. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if this was some type of ploy or experiment. Advertising has no ethics what so ever. Never ever trust advertising. It’s a mixture of lies, deception and psychological manipulation. Supporting that is child’s play.
There is definitely a third party influence on the monetized content on YouTube. That’s a fact. It can’t be trusted. That is also a fact. Argument based on semantics will never get anywhere. What will is new business models that cut out the advertisers. They are the rot in generations of brains. They sell everything wrapped in BS.
No I thought the off topic section was little slow and I was intending to start a discussion about how modern propaganda works.
…doesn’t look like I succeeded
That’s a blanket statement, would you say the same thing if it’s a local business airing an ad on TV (even if he was completely honest about his product), would you even say the same thing for signs advertising garage sales and little Billy’s lemonade stand down the street?
The issue is not the very idea of advertising or selling things, but rather the subset of people who make their business reliant on misleading people or selling phony products. There’s also a lot of people who advertise responsibly and with honesty (so as to make sure the product you get is exactly what the ad says it would do), so I wouldn’t lump them all into one basket.
The off topic section on a Blender forum was slow and the first idea that came to mind was to start ranting about issues on a completely different website and about propaganda? Not even try to strike up a conversation about cute animals or people’s favorite TV shows? That’s an odd line of reasoning to follow. Surely this is going to end well because everyone knows the internet is obviously capable of producing rational discussion about serious matters.
Checks for user: Thunderf00t
Nope, no such user here. Pretty sure Thunderf00t, his mother, and his invisible bogeymen can’t hear you from here.
It’s true that you can still put up videos on YouTube saying and doing what you want (within legal limits) without having to fear anyone taking them down. However for the people making a living off of YouTube they will suddenly find themselves in a position where they cannot say or do certain things else they don’t get paid. It’s corporate greed at it’s finest.
^^ I really hope there’s a “Funny Internet Videos Thread” somewhere on here, because otherwise I’m gonna make one. Also, +1 for you Ace (if upvoting comments was a feature here)
^ Most people don’t have enough viewers to gain enough money for the video demonetization to really affect their income from Youtube. The people that do usually rely on alternate sources of income like Patreon. I guess it is kinda like censorship, if censorship was “hey if you don’t meet my ridiculous demands stated in my Terms of Service, I’m not going to give you three extra dollars a month”.
Oh please! Industries have standards and the standard in advertising is clearly deception. Be naive if you want; just don’t expect others to.
(EDIT) When I posted that comment, I followed it up by showing industry standard practices that could easily be considered evil. You however, didn’t feel the need to address that. This doesn’t surprise me.
That would be according to your personal definition of standards, do you really think anyone advertising anything is completely incapable of being honest and trustworthy?
Would you say the same thing if it was the government advertising a service or initiative, or is the state seen as incapable of being dishonest unlike the private sector?
And please, why the need to take potshots at the character of people whenever they write something you disagree with? If you only want to talk to people who share your point of view, then it’s not going to happen here at BA.
Please notice that I posted your full response, rather than obscuring your explanation; even though I don’t agree with it. This is not a courtesy that I have ever gotten from you. If you think I’m attacking your character by stating factually what your behavior consistently is, then maybe you should think more about your behavior.
On a similar note, the behavior of the advertising industry is what I was criticizing. Their standard practices are what I was criticizing. What they do as general practice. This is factual information. I’m not even going to try to figure out what their intentions were. That’s a waste of time.
Your last sentence speaks volumes. Your opinion is obviously based on an ideology rooted in a false dichotomy. It’s that Randian, Neo-Capitalistic, industry vs government nonsense. I’ll have nothing to do with that either.
My “opinion” is based on evidence. It’s based on what MBAs are taught in college; but you’re not the type to look something like that up; so why waste my time on you?
True enough but just because most people aren’t affected doesn’t change the fact that it’s censorship and those who are affected are the ones that are the most influential to people. For example, there’s a lot of independent news shows on YouTube. Now if your local newspapers started to not report on certain subjects because that would make them lose income would you still say that’s not censorship?
I think you underestimate how much money there is to make from YouTube. It is actually a legitimate job to run a large YouTube channel and the ad revenue (when you have subscribers in the millions) is not ‘a few dollars’ but tens of thousands of dollars that can be lost if you are not deemed ‘advertiser friendly’.
