German Union suing YouTube for billions over unfair conditions for Creators

[Drak3]

Just now, mr moose said:

hence any company concerned with their revenue will pull ads from anything that risks offending the delicate snowflakes.

We don't see that though. If an advertiser does not want to be on a specific channel, they can readily choose so.

 

And no, most companies don't fear the outrage mob. They understand that the core demographic is not that stupid.

[spartaman64]

i like and support their efforts to get youtube to give creators more options to fight against demonetization etc but i dont agree with the notion that youtubers are not self employed and that youtube should pay social insurance. first of all if you are not self employed then that means youtube can set when you work, for how long, what sort of videos you make and other terms like that and that is probably something they dont want

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

We don't see that though. If an advertiser does not want to be on a specific channel, they can readily choose so.

 

And no, most companies don't fear the outrage mob. They understand that the core demographic is not that stupid.

I heavily disagree, if that were the case we wouldn't have have half the stupid shit we have, like the Gillette ad and virtue signalling in general, carefully planned marketing campaigns that avoid hot topics,  Advertising and sponsorship deals with explicit conditions regarding certain activities. 

 

 

Companies pulling ads for all sorts of content that makes them look bad to the general public is very common:

 

https://psmag.com/social-justice/over-a-dozen-companies-have-pulled-their-advertising-from-tucker-carlsons-show

https://adage.com/article/news/nestl-disney-pulled-ads-youtube/316710

https://thinkprogress.org/companies-pull-ads-from-jeanine-pirro-fox-news-anti-muslim-ilhan-omar-d9365ee63ab2/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/08/huggies-specsavers-pull-ads-sky-news-far-right-extremist-interview-american-express

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/att-pulls-all-ads-from-youtube-pedophilia-controversy.html

 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I heavily disagree, if that were the case we wouldn't have have half the stupid shit we have, like the Gillette ad and virtue signalling in general, carefully planned marketing campaigns that avoid hot topics,  Advertising and sponsorship deals with explicit conditions regarding certain activities. 

 

 

Companies pulling ads for all sorts of content that makes them look bad to the general public is very common:

 

https://psmag.com/social-justice/over-a-dozen-companies-have-pulled-their-advertising-from-tucker-carlsons-show

https://adage.com/article/news/nestl-disney-pulled-ads-youtube/316710

https://thinkprogress.org/companies-pull-ads-from-jeanine-pirro-fox-news-anti-muslim-ilhan-omar-d9365ee63ab2/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/08/huggies-specsavers-pull-ads-sky-news-far-right-extremist-interview-american-express

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/att-pulls-all-ads-from-youtube-pedophilia-controversy.html

 

Three of those links are for specific media outlets (reinforcing my point), and the other two are in regards to legitimate pedophillia (which is actually widely looked down upon).

 

EDIT: Whereas advertisers aren't calling for outlets like Tim Poole (a so called Conservative that agrees moreso with moderate 'progressive' view points and tries to advice Democrats on what they're doing wrong this election cycle) to be demonitized.

[Trik'Stari]

About fucking time.

 

Someone needs to follow suit in the US.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

About fucking time.

 

Someone needs to follow suit in the US.

Ted Cruz called them out on their censorship using material from their own marketting department in the latest round of US govt anti trust hearings.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Three of those links are for specific media outlets (reinforcing my point), and the other two are in regards to legitimate pedophillia (which is actually widely looked down upon).

??

 

So you agree companies can and do pull advertising when it hurts their sales/image.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

??

 

So you agree companies can and do pull advertising when it hurts their sales/image.

Yes, and they pull it from the specific outlets.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, and they pull it from the specific outlets.

So why do you think google censoring is to do with content and not the fear of losing advertising revenue?

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So why do you think google censoring is to do with content and not the fear of losing advertising revenue?

They censor content of moderates and conservatives far more than """"progressives,"""" despite some of them legitimately inciting violence, spreading slander/fake news, and participating in what Google theoretically considers hate speech.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They censor content of moderates and conservatives far more than """"progressives,"""" despite some of them legitimately inciting violence, spreading slander/fake news, and participating in what Google theoretically considers hate speech.

 

People are largely arseholes,  If that is happening it is because threatening to kill an extreme right wing for any reason does not adversely effect advertising revenue the same way as telling a gay he is worthless.

[Majinhoju]

Any censoring, deplatforming, demonetizing or any other reactions to surpress right wing or conservative voices on any platform (facebook, youtube etc..) are all business decisions.  If I think doing business with you will hurt my business image then I'm going to drop you as a customer.  

 

If conservatives are deplatformed etc.. more than liberals I'm pretty sure they've done the market research and feel that one side of the political spectrum is more profitable than the other.  Has a right wing boycott ever affected anything?  Starbucks is doing just fine despite the christmas cup outrage.  I think Gillete is doing just fine too.  Now left wing boycotts? Those have hit businesses hard.  It should come to no suprise that any company would sway to where the money is.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

If that is happening it is because threatening to kill an extreme right wing for any reason does not adversely effect advertising revenue the same way as telling a gay he is worthless.

No, it's not.

 

To say otherwise is to say that calling for white genocide and violence for anyone who disagrees (Maza's milkshake them all, which is what lead to Andy Ngo getting hospitalized) is better for advertising than it is to say that Trump is not as bad as the media says (like Fleccas Talks)

[Nowak]

39 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Ted Cruz called them out on their censorship using material from their own marketting department in the latest round of US govt anti trust hearings.

But that's just talk, not action.

 

If you want change on YouTube, hit them where it hurts: their revenue. Money talks.

[Drak3]

Just now, Nowak said:

But that's just talk, not action

The Anti trust is due to these """platforms""" censoring based upon political lines.

 

Which would make them publishers legally.

 

Which removes certain protections concering libel.

 

Which opens these companies to libel suits.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it's not.

 

To say otherwise is to say that calling for white genocide and violence for anyone who disagrees (Maza's milkshake them all, which is what lead to Andy Ngo getting hospitalized) is better for advertising than it is to say that Trump is not as bad as the media says (like Fleccas Talks)

 

I am not saying that hate speech against the right is good for sales, I am just saying it doesn't upset the general population the same way that hate speech for the left does.  For whatever reason (a stupid arse entitled one probably) people are more offending at racism and anti gay speech than they are about death threats to right wing politics. 

 

Like it or not, it just doesn't effect advertising revenue the same way. 

[Nowak]

Just now, Drak3 said:

The Anti trust is due to these """platforms""" censoring based upon political lines.

 

Which would make them publishers legally.

 

Which removes certain protections concering libel.

 

Which opens these companies to libel suits.

Have you ever considered: money being the only language corporations understand? Or would you prefer to keep up this narrative about them caring so much about politics?

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

it just doesn't effect advertising revenue the same way. 

Which is why Tim Poole and Crowder are doing pretty well with just direct donations and sales.

 

Why James Allsup is now sponsored directly.

 

And even why Fox News' ratings are up when others are down (especially CNN's).

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Which is why Tim Poole and Crowder are doing pretty well with just direct donations and sales.

 

Why James Allsup is now sponsored directly.

 

And even why Fox News' ratings are up when others are down (especially CNN's).

 

And?  those guys host popular shows, they are all in a good position to get funding, That doesn't mean google aren't concerned with losing revenue form the other 90% of advertisers who don't want to be associated with them.

 

You know the adpocalypse happened for a reason, it wasn't just google trying to censor people on political grounds.  It cost them millions when advertisers pulled their funding..

[Nowak]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You know the adpocalypse happened for a reason, it wasn't just google trying to censor people on political grounds.  It cost them millions when advertisers pulled their funding..

We can't admit that, because that'd mean admitting that the "right wing persecution" narrative is false!

[Drak3]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

those guys host popular shows

Allsup and Poole don't.

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You know the adpocalypse happened for a reason, it wasn't just google trying to censor people on political grounds.

Yes, it was. The last Adpocalypse was the direct result of Maza slandering Crowder.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Allsup and Poole don't.

Obviously they do,  They both have content big enough to gain funding.

 

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

 

Yes, it was. The last Adpocalypse was the direct result of Maza slandering Crowder.

 

All adpocolyopse's are the result of companies not wanting to be associated with shit content that makes viewers angry or uncomfortable. None of it is caused by a political leaning in google, Google just don't care, what they care about it money, cold hard cash,  if advertisers don't want to pay because of content then they block advertising on said content.

 

 

[Chett_Manly]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

youtube doesnt earn money youtube loses google money

You are confusing revenue for profit. They do not make profit, they do earn revenue. What little they get, they get from ad deals for views, and subs, and creators drive those views and subscription payments.

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Obviously they do,  They both have content big enough to gain funding.

 

 

All adpocolyopse's are the result of companies not wanting to be associated with shit content that makes viewers angry or uncomfortable. None of it is caused by a political leaning in google, Google just don't care, what they care about it money, cold hard cash,  if advertisers don't want to pay because of content then they block advertising on said content.

 

 

You're making contradictory arguments. These channels cannot simultaniously drive away advertising and attract it, or attract advertisers not already on the platform and be demonitized for it.

 

And these channels are not large. They're growing whilst mainstream derivatives aren't, but they're still not what anyone would call popular.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You're making contradictory arguments. These channels cannot simultaniously drive away advertising and attract it, or attract advertisers not already on the platform and be demonitized for it.

 

And these channels are not large. They're growing whilst mainstream derivatives aren't, but they're still not what anyone would call popular.

 

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).  

 

Just because some advertisers actually have a reason to sponsor said content (maybe their home town or product is heavily right wing, who knows), doesn't mean the vast majority do not experience a drop in revenue when they are associated with it.   This is the bit you seem to be missing,    Advertisers pull their money from google en masse due to certain content, it has nothing to do with google trying to censor content, but with google not wanting to lose that revenue.