Youtube’s terms of service update is every social justice warrior’s wet dream

EliotG said:
I enjoy watching people like Markiplier crap their pants whilst playing scary videos. If he makes a lot of money from it, good for him. However nearly all of his videos have swearing and/or sexual innuendos in them. Surely that means all his videos will be not monetisable? (If that's a word).
Click to expand...

Youtubes biggest contributors in viewers are channels like these. They wont put heavy restrictions on them because at the moment they are not only doing their job well but doing it better than the rest!

Putting restrictions on content by threatening to remove their paycheque would be such a stupid move. They could assign the videos as inappropriate for under 18s but trying to fix what is not broken may well end up forcing their most popular creators to host their own site... leaving youtube with the dregs, the potato cams and the millions of terrible, rarely viewed lets-plays which cost insane amounts to host.

Will youtube shoot themselves in the foot? I doubt it but given some of the previous dubious decisions, very possible.

It costs companies huge amounts to advertise on youtube. Youtube should hire people to choose appropriate videos to target and focus certain audiences. This increases the effectiveness of advertisement and reduces the chance of companies being misrepresented. The value of advertisement will go up massively with the increase in efficiency and they can better gauge the worth of specific channels/videos. TV has been doing it for decades.
 
EliotG said:
I enjoy watching people like Markiplier crap their pants whilst playing scary videos. If he makes a lot of money from it, good for him. However nearly all of his videos have swearing and/or sexual innuendos in them. Surely that means all his videos will be not monetisable? (If that's a word).
Click to expand...

from the regs:

What is “advertiser-friendly” content?
In short, advertiser-friendly content is appropriate for all audiences, from our youngest to older viewers. It is content that has little to no inappropriate and/or mature content in the video stream, thumbnail, or metadata such as video title. If there may be inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic where the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain, and not offend or shock.

So Markiplier, and others like him, is fine.
 
EliotG said:
YouTube = Google. Google want to control EVERYTHING. I hate Google.

I enjoy watching people like Markiplier crap their pants whilst playing scary videos. If he makes a lot of money from it, good for him. However nearly all of his videos have swearing and/or sexual innuendos in them. Surely that means all his videos will be not monetisable? (If that's a word).

I would never bet my career/life income on a service that is owned and run by Google. Because when something like this happens, where does it leave you?
Click to expand...

You hate Google but happily use their service to watch Markiplier (whoever that is)

Strong stance you've taken there. That'll show em.
 
VincentHanna said:
You hate Google but happily use their service to watch Markiplier (whoever that is)

Strong stance you've taken there. That'll show em.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that? I dislike living in this country but I have no choice.

If the uploader doesn't share their content elsewhere, then you've got no choice but to suck it up and continue using it, unless of course you want to miss out on the content entirely. Doesn't mean you can't dislike what Google does though.
 
VincentHanna said:
You hate Google but happily use their service to watch Markiplier (whoever that is)

Strong stance you've taken there. That'll show em.
Click to expand...

How many people hate their telecoms provider because of their horrible customer service but still use their mobile?

Boycotting something just because you dont like something linked with it, is more a child's tantrum than a strong stance.

By not watching it, do you think they will notice? Nope

Will you notice? Ofc, you are without one of your enjoyable channels.


Some people think they rock the world when they strut, but all they do is get a stone in their shoe. :D
 
I was pretty shocked they hit phillip de franco...he literally just talks about the news/goings on. I used to watch him way back....

He is a huge youtuber and been around since the very beginning....

All because he reported on that retarded SJW verbally attacking that lyft cab driver over a bobble head doll he had on his front dash.

These SJW's are seriously pathetic vermin. Twitter has been infested by them.
 
Last edited:
Here's hoping all the people that use the phrase SJW scuttle off to a service that suits them and leaves Twitter and YouTube for everyone else to enjoy :)
 
Google/Alphabet and its algorithmic denial of editorial responsibility. Trailing behind FB but getting there. But look on the bright side: ranters, comedians and said promoters of social justice will all be equally hammered, and there's potential for an entirely new language to evolve to bypass the digital censorship overlords. Still people did agree to their ToS -- tough luck. Take them to court if you feel triggered.
 
ThestigGT999 said:
not surprised by your post lol :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not surprised by you being in here either ;)

But you know, I respect your right to air whatever opinions you like no matter how much I disagree.

I also respect the right of any business to conduct themselves however they wish, including deciding what they do and don't want on their service.

Honestly, wish the 'alt right' or whatever the rebrand is would just make their own platform and stop all this bickering.
 
mid_gen said:
You kids and your catchphrases, it's like being back in the playground!
Click to expand...

BqzEuA0.jpg
 
Youtube is not stopping you uploading whatever garbage you want.

All they are doing is saying you won't be allowed advertisements and therefore money for posting content which causes grief for advertisers if their adverts show up on such a video.

They are not backtracking on an employment contract they are redefining what is eligible for advertisement money.
 
I wish the SJWs or people who get easily offended by content just simply not watch the content that has or does trigger them, as they don't represent the majority of people who enjoy the content.

In this example if you have two people, both are offended and doesn't like big brother

A) doesn't watch it and moves on

B) complains about it and reports it as inappropriate content or what ever excuse they use

which person seem more sensible A or B (SJW)?
 
ThestigGT999 said:
I wish the SJWs or people who get easily offended by content just simply not watch the content that has or does trigger them, as they don't represent the majority of people who enjoy the content.

In this example if you have two people, both are offended and doesn't like big brother

A) doesn't watch it and moves on

B) complains about it and reports it as inappropriate content or what ever excuse they use

which person seem more sensible A or B (SJW)?
Click to expand...

Whenever I come across these people in the real world they don't seem to understand that I'm totally free to walk away and not listen to them. They seriously cannot grasp it. Like they have a divine right that their current audience must listen to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom