German Union suing YouTube for billions over unfair conditions for Creators

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They are not contradictory,  you can't claim that because someone has 1 or 2 advertisers that are happy to sponsor them that all advertisers are.  The evidence is exactly the opposite.  Advertisers using google are on the whole pulling their ads from any content that causes them a drop in revenue (anything that effects their PR).  

The evidense is that there are advertisers that will monetize them, and that advertizers can have their ads pulled from specific channels. There is no need for mass demonitization.

[MMKing]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

And you don't think that the mass censoring and virtue signalling google do in those situations isn't driven by advertisers being worried about backlash on those videos?

People seemingly believe google has full control over what gets advertised on which videos. When in reality, if you operate a youtube channel dealing with ''risque topics'', chances are companies will explicitly tell youtube that your category, or even your channel in particular is no-no.

If Coca Cola doesn't want their ads shown on your channel, thats it. There is no argument or plea. Coca Cola said no, and that is final.

 

 

''Give clear explanations for individual decisions — for example, if a video is demonetized, which parts of the video violated which criteria in the Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines?''

 

If this comes true, what i imagine we will be seeing is allot of messages saying ''Our advertisers, who shall remain unnamed, want nothing to do with your channel''. Alternatively if Google is for some odd reason forced to disclose internal communication between Google and it's customers, because that is what they are, customers. I imagine even more companies will be pulling their ads off of Youtube. Now Coca Cola cannot quietly distance itself from certain channels or videos, now they risk public backlash for doing so... or public backlash for failing to do so.

 

On TV, no one has to know Coca Cola pulled their ad from a time slot, one particular show or from the channel entirely. It's not the public's business, it's a private business transaction. But on youtube, now every single ''content creator'' (whatever that will mean legally) is privy to information and communication between themselves, youtube and the companies buying advertisement.

 

''Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines''

 

They are called guidelines for a reason. It's not a set rule, ''don't do this specifically''. It's a list of suggestions. Even if you are well within the guidelines, certain companies may still find their content objectionable. Which they are free to do, for any reason, or even no reason at all.

 

Example 1: Maybe you colored your hair and some company doesn't like that? Too bad, they don't want anything to do with your channel.

 

Example 2: You drink Pepsi in your video? Too bad if Coca Cola doesn't like that.

 

Both of these examples may be within the guidelines. However, for one reason or another someone could decide that your channel is not a good place for their advertisements.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

The evidense is that there are advertisers that will monetize them, and that advertizers can have their ads pulled from specific channels. There is no need for mass demonitization.

 

That really depends on the advertisers using googles platform and the effects that content has.   Again, just because some advertisers will sponsor them doesn't mean all will and it certainly doesn't mean any of those using google want to. 

 

 

[Drak3]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

That really depends on the advertisers using googles platform and the effects that content has.   Again, just because some advertisers will sponsor them doesn't mean all will and it certainly doesn't mean any of those using google want to. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

advertizers can have their ads pulled from specific channels

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, MMKing said:

People seemingly believe google has full control over what gets advertised on which videos. When in reality, if you operate a youtube channel dealing with ''risque topics'', chances are companies will explicitly tell youtube that your category, or even your channel in particular is no-no.

If Coca Cola doesn't want their ads shown on your channel, thats it. There is no argument or plea. Coca Cola said no, and that is final.

 

 

''Give clear explanations for individual decisions — for example, if a video is demonetized, which parts of the video violated which criteria in the Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines?''

 

If this comes true, what i imagine we will be seeing is allot of messages saying ''Our advertisers, who shall remain unnamed, want nothing to do with your channel''. Alternatively if Google is for some odd reason forced to disclose internal communication between Google and it's customers, because that is what they are, customers. I imagine even more companies will be pulling their ads off of Youtube. Now Coca Cola cannot quietly distance itself from certain channels or videos, now they risk public backlash for doing so... or public backlash for failing to do so.

 

On TV, no one has to know Coca Cola pulled their ad from a time slot, one particular show or from the channel entirely. It's not the public's business, it's a private business transaction. But on youtube, now every single ''content creator'' (whatever that will mean legally) is privy to information and communication between themselves, youtube and the companies buying advertisement.

 

And that further risks googles revenue across the board, not just for individual channels.

 

 

[MMKing]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

And that further risks googles revenue across the board, not just for individual channels.

 

 

The entire thing will fall apart like 3 communists vigorously attempting to split an ever shrinking pie into 3 equally large pieces.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

 

 

you are forgetting that youtube keep promising that, but advertisers are pulling their content from the entirety of you tube because they aren't stopping it.  It doesn't mater whether there is a technical way to only advertise on certain channels, it isn't happening so they are pulling all their money.  

 

One channel getting demonetized because 11 of their biggest advertisers are pulling out completely is not political censorship, it is financial nest shitting.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

but advertisers are pulling their content from the entirety of you tube because they aren't stopping it.

Not of view points right of Stalin's.

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

One channel getting demonetized because 11 of their biggest advertisers are pulling out completely is not political censorship, it is financial nest shitting.

That's not what's happening.

[Drak3]

@mr moose Let's pretend you're right. These channels would be banned and all their content removed.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

@mr moose Let's pretend you're right. These channels would be banned and all their content removed.

No they wouldn't because youtube doesn't want to censor any content,    Youtube haven't pulled down any of the above mentioned content, just demonetized them.   Why? because they are reacting to a financial issue, not a political one.  

 

I can guarantee you if there is cash in those videos staying up and monetized then they would be defending the advertisers crying free speech in the true American way.  But they aren't  because it's costing them money they are trying to appease their main revenue stream.  And all without infringing the free speech (even if only in concept and not as a technical right) of those channels. 

 

 

[Marinatall_Ironside]

Advertisers are legally allowed to advertise their product/service to whoever or whatever they want. They're even allowed to pull ads if they don't like that person/group/organisation/corporation and find someone else to advertise to.

 

The image of a company is always at stake. If they advertise on someone's platform whose image isn't associated with the advertisers themselves, that can and will hurt their reputation with the buying public who sees these ads posted on those channels. So they have to carefully pick and choose where to post their ads. PR is a royal pain in the ass to do, and you can get paid good money making a company look good just by spinning up some good sentences and get good results.

 

Would Forever 21 or some other modern clothing line want to advertise on a channel who's a hater, "toxic", ultra-conservative, or otherwise not associated with their brand image or what they aspire to be? Nope, that's not going to fly at all.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

youtube doesn't want to censor any content,

Ted Cruz questioned Google, using material made by Google, on why the company sees itself and Youtube as censors.

 

Real kicker, it's being covered by the same independant journalists Google demonitized.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Ted Cruz questioned Google, using material made by Google, on why the company sees itself and Youtube as censors.

 

Real kicker, it's being covered by the same independant journalists Google demonitized.

see here:

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't know about the technicalities, but I like the angle they are coming from.

 

It has gotten to a stage now where youtube wants:

 

1. to be the publisher but not be liable for publishing content

2. to be the platform, but not be liable for platforming the creator

3. to make money off the creators but not be liable for any of the creators losses

4. to claim not wanting to censor anything but are censoring anything that costs them money.

 

If you can't provide a service that you can't properly manage, then don't provide the service.

 

 

 

 

 

It really is a mammoth beast of a product that they can't manage (for multiple reasons).   There will be at least one contradiction from them for every issue that occurs. 

[MMKing]

@Drak3

 

Channels attracting controversy could follow every rule in every book there is, and could still not get monetized. If the advertiser (customer) does not want their ads associated with your content, you're out of luck. Youtube is working as an ad agency and a middle man between content creators, viewers and the advertiser. Youtube simply cannot force advertisement on videos or channels that their customers don't want.

 

It's entirely reasonable for Youtube to assume their customers do not want their product advertised on a controversial political video or channel.

[Drak3]

Just now, MMKing said:

Channels attracting controversy could follow every rule in every book there is, and could still not get monetized.

Vox

Vice

CNN

Now This

The Young Turks

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Vox - has outside sources of revenue

Vice - no idea

CNN - mainstream media

Now This

The Young Turks - they're getting outside sources of advertising revenue

Ben Shapiro

Steven Crowder

[D]ave [R]ubin

FOX

PragerU

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Ben Shapiro

Steven Crowder

Rave Dubin

FOX

PragerU

I actually like ben shapiro,  some things he says I just disagree with (for more philosophical reasons), but for the most part I enjoy his rationality and the importance he places on everyone being of equal right regardless of their opinion.  

[Drak3]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I actually like ben shapiro,  some things he says I just disagree with (for more philosophical reasons), but for the most part I enjoy his rationality and the importance he places on everyone being of equal right regardless of their opinion.  

Florida man missed the point entirely. MMKing stated that controversy brings demonitization. I listed channels that deliberately drive as much controversy they can as it makes them money.

[MMKing]

39 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Florida man missed the point entirely. MMKing stated that controversy brings demonitization. I listed channels that deliberately drive as much controversy they can as it makes them money.

No, controversy COULD bring demonetization. Literally anything can bring demonetization. If you drink Pepsi in your video, Coca Cola may pull their ads from your video or even your entire channel. If you're a health channel, McDonalds may not want to advertise on your channel.

 

It should come as a surprise to no one. That companies tend to stay away from politics.

[Drak3]

Just now, MMKing said:

That companies tend to stay away from politics.

That's blatantly false.

 

Many of the companies in question want nothing to do with extreme fringes. They are fully cognizant to the fact that most people are not strictly left or right, nor does an ad on a video mean that the company supports the creator, despite what Google would like you to believe.

 

And half of these "it's not politics!" have holes in them. The other half is contradictory.

 

 

As well as this:

 

By the way, I specifically choose Tim Poole because he's not conservative, at best he's a moderate. He tries to be a fence sitter, but he also offers advice to Democrats on how to appeal to US citizens.

[Eaglerino]

12 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

youtubers are definitely not employees maybe they can be classified as private contractors 

As far as I know they get paid 100% of their income like contractors. They have to pay their own taxes. They aren't employees. In the US this is probably on a 1099 Miscellaneous tax form, not a W2 like usual employer might have

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Florida man missed the point entirely. MMKing stated that controversy brings demonitization. I listed channels that deliberately drive as much controversy they can as it makes them money.

 

Dave Rubin interview with Ben Shapiro got demonized.  They all experience it at some point because it is the nature of the beast with advertisers.  Hell, Shapiro even gets his speaking events cancelled on him because they are controversial.   It's really not that hard to blackmail (yes, I used that term to define what they are doing) institutions or companies into avoiding a person because you don't like what they have to say. 

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

They all experience it at some point because it is the nature of the beast with advertisers.  Hell, Shapiro even gets his speaking events cancelled on him because they are controversial.   It's really not that hard to blackmail (yes, I used that term to define what they are doing) institutions or companies into avoiding a person because you don't like what they have to say. 

Don't talk if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Shapiro's events are cancelled because most campuses are ran by """progressives""" that cannot counter his arguments. When the events do go through, turn out is excellent. When they don't, there are rallies demanding free speech.

 

This is not about money. It never has been. It's about controlling the narrative and smearing opposition.

[ARikozuM]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Don't talk if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Shapiro's events are cancelled because most campuses are ran by """progressives""" that cannot counter his arguments. When the events do go through, turn out is excellent. When they don't, there are rallies demanding free speech.

 

This is not about money. It never has been. It's about controlling the narrative and smearing opposition.

Shapiro has never been interested in having proper discourse. Look at the BBC interview he had. Look at how he flip flops on topics as soon as Israel is involved. 

[Skanky Sylveon]

And this is why the LTT fourms don't allow political discussion.  Holy shit what a fucking trainwreck!  Someone, bring me some eye bleach!

 

Seriously though, fuck this shit, I'm out of this thread.