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

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 18:42

Moses said:
This isn't to do with what people can upload. It's to do with what they can monetise, no?

Exactly. Mountain out of a molehill here...

And having just checked a couple of videos of the guy quoted in the OP it's fairly obvious why most advertisers wouldn't want to be associated with what he is saying.

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 18:49

Avenged7Fold said:
Youtube is my DIY guide to everything.

And these are very unlikely to be affected.

adolf hamster said:
So the big video game channels, which i understand make youtube a pretty penny, are now going to have their (and youtubes) funding cut off because they feature violence?

That's going to go down well with youtubes accountants

Same with these.

Reality is they will have been written in as they are so youtube can point to the T&Cs and say "you broke them" to people posting videos advertisers probably won't want to be associated with. It's unlikely to affect an AAA game that features violence, or a legitimate documentary, or film. It will affect videos made and posted to intentionally inflame and offend and or stupid stuff.

So most likely what will be affected is creep style videos, videos with people chatting controversial rubbish and other dodgy rubbish. They will still be able to upload it, but just not monetise it.

Destination · 1 Sep 2016 at 18:50

Surely you can still upload whatever you like, but they just won't pay to upload stuff that they consider the can't conscience charging advertisers to be linked with?

Am I missing a point?
Upload whatever you like, but they won't be your vehicle to make money with anymore, if you cover topics they don't want to pay you to cover?

I am rather interested to see how all those music videos do in regards this...

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 18:51

Avenged7Fold said:
This really, but youtube are doing it the lazy way, rather than targeting certain audiences with certain ads using certain videos, they are trying to make all sponsor videos safe for all advertisement.

They are free to make the mistake, it will eventually bite them on the ass and also makes the advertisement less effective.

Out of interest who is going to want to advertise next to a video where someone is claiming Islam should be banned, or vitriol about women etc?

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 18:55

G-MAN2004 said:
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.

Yes you do, there are 27 other countries you could move to tomorrow if you wanted. And multiple others you could quite possibly move to with a bit more effort and time.

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 18:58

Pawnless Endgame said:

Kinda ironic really, as some of the most offended are those offended by SJW's, Muslims and pretty much anything to do with Homo/trans news.

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 18:59

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)?

Here here.

Now, to start this trend can people stop making threads about rubbish like this one? Just do option A, rather than B. It's that simple Thestig.

EDIT: Really should use the multi quote button...

ThestigGT999 · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:05

Amp34 said:
Kinda ironic really, as some of the most offended are those offended by SJW's, Muslims and pretty much anything to do with Homo/trans news.

IDK about people here but I haven't watched any pro-SJW content on youtube in general or been offended by it as it doesn't interest me, I don't watch that type content or any content that I don't want to watch.

Arthur Hucksake said:
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.

so true

StriderX · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:06

I don't get it, Youtube is a business that enjoys at least some level of revenue... business is supposed to be done without emotional attachment involved as it usually loses you money.

So this... is literally a company losing revenue for SOMEONE ELSES EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT.

Like what the ****?

Hopefully there will come a red letter day when this ******** ends and these people will have yearned for the time before they got their collective panties in a permanent tangle.

ThestigGT999 · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:08

PC and SJW friendly content

StriderX · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:15

I wonder how easy it is to flag any video now as being offensive?

Would be a good way to tell Google...Alphabet to reign in its Youtube branch before it loses it money.

rickjames · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:15

As long as I can watch Scottish comedian Limmy live stream GTA V then fine by me

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:43

ThestigGT999 said:
IDK about people here but I haven't watched any pro-SJW content on youtube in general or been offended by it as it doesn't interest me, I don't watch that type content or any content that I don't want to watch.

No, but you get offended about youtube changing their terms, even though it probably doesn't affect you.

The same with a myriad of other threads (e.g.. the Burkini thread), where a significant number who complain about "SJWs" and people that get offended "to easily" seem to get offended at the drop of a hat about something that doesn't affect them (in the above case seeing a Burkini on a beach...).

It's actually pretty funny, but quite sad at the same time.

StriderX · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:45

Amp34 said:
No, but you get offended about youtube changing their terms, even though it probably doesn't affect you.

The same with a myriad of other threads (e.g.. the Burkini thread), where a significant number who complain about "SJWs" and people that get offended "to easily" seem to get offended at the drop of a hat about something that doesn't affect them (in the above case seeing a Burkini on a beach...).

It's actually pretty funny, but quite sad at the same time.

Its not really being offended as simply getting annoyed at what is an utterly stupid decision for a company to make (losing itself money).

If anyones offended it would be a capitalist.

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:46

StriderX said:
I don't get it, Youtube is a business that enjoys at least some level of revenue... business is supposed to be done without emotional attachment involved as it usually loses you money.

So this... is literally a company losing revenue for SOMEONE ELSES EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT.

Like what the ****?

Hopefully there will come a red letter day when this ******** ends and these people will have yearned for the time before they got their collective panties in a permanent tangle.

I think you'll find that in fact it's completely emotionally unattached. Youtube has probably been contacted by advertisers complaining about their ads being next to videos that may cause economic and/or brand damage. Youtube in turn will have then updated/enforced their rules so as not to lose business and revenue. About as unemotionally attached as you can get.

The only people using emotion in all this is likely to be you and others complaining about it.

StriderX · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:47

Amp34 said:
I think you'll find that in fact it's completely emotionally unattached. Youtube has probably been contacted by advertisers complaining about their ads being next to videos that may cause economic and/or brand damage. Youtube in turn will have then updated/enforced their rules so as not to lose business and revenue. About as unemotionally attached as you can get.

The only people using emotion in all this is likely to be you and others complaining about it.

"probably", doesn't enthuse one with confidence here.

brb, flagging literally everything I see from now on.

Burned_Alive · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:48

Be interesting to see what would happen if the big content makers could get together and pull down all their videos. Wonder what Youtube would do then.

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:48

StriderX said:
Its not really being offended as simply getting annoyed at what is an utterly stupid decision for a company to make (losing itself money).

If anyones offended it would be a capitalist.

Losing a small amount of revenue from a few videos that now cannot be monetised is probably a minor inconvenience relative to losing the business of a large advertising company.

Amp34 · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:50

StriderX said:
"probably", doesn't enthuse one with confidence here.

brb, flagging literally everything I see from now on.

Well, do you have any evidence youtube and google are putting emotion before business with the implementation of this?

If it was a one man band then I'd perhaps agree that emotion may play a part, but we are talking about a huge company, employing thousands of people and part of a company listed on multiple stock markets, and owned by thousands of very powerful organisations, who's only interest is making money.

But no, this is entirely an emotional, not revenue based, decision.

StriderX · 1 Sep 2016 at 19:54

Do you honestly believe an advertiser would ditch the biggest video website on the planet because of a few minor issues?

I mean really.