Youtube’s terms of service update is every social justice warrior’s wet dream
- Thread starter ThestigGT999
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 10,477
- Location
- Bath, England
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 10,477
- Location
- Bath, England
It's as if people think that Youtube is a public service or something
It's a business which people can use free of charge, which means you either use it on their terms or use something else. It's not hard, is it?
Such principles change when an entity has excessive market dominance however. "I get to decide who I will allow to rent a market stall" becomes a big issue when you've out all other markets out of business or driven them so far off that almost nobody goes there.
Last edited:
A lot of posters on here seem to be missing the point. YouTube isn't stopping you from uploading videos, so if you want to upload that GTA5 walk-through, then that's absolutely fine.
What the new policy is doing is stopping those that create these videos from making a few quid if they don't want to follow the new rules.
In my eyes that's absolutely fine, and should have been bought in years ago. There are some people who make a great deal of money by actually bringing some talent to the video. Whilst there are others who are quite clearly talentless and throw in some violence or whatever to try and make the videos popular in order to make them some money.
What the new policy is doing is stopping those that create these videos from making a few quid if they don't want to follow the new rules.
In my eyes that's absolutely fine, and should have been bought in years ago. There are some people who make a great deal of money by actually bringing some talent to the video. Whilst there are others who are quite clearly talentless and throw in some violence or whatever to try and make the videos popular in order to make them some money.
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,132
- Location
- one nation under sony
what's wrong with that if people want to watch "crap" content it's their choice to do so also the if the content creator create /establish an audience who like the content they create is that really a big deal. As I have said before if you don't like said content don't watch it.
I vaguely remember yourube being quite popular before they started putting adverts int he video
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,064
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
Not a great loss imo. Their video titles were click-bait anyway, Daily Mail style.
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,132
- Location
- one nation under sony
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Well with the current advertisement, it doesn't matter, seems it just randomly goes on whatever video. Maybe a ukip referendum campaign would have done well on that sorta video. It really doesn't even need to be related to the video content, just target the same groups.
Was watching some fishing videos and a tampon advert came one. Way to target your audience xD. Did make me think that if i ever ran out of floats and i brought the bird along...
*turns to misses* 'you dont happen to have a... no never mind'
Permabanned
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,661
- Location
- Durham
Even videos that genuinely help people about suicide and life experiences are being flagged under these new guidelines. I agree something needs to be done about all the "commentary" channels that are big now that just tear people apart and are just toxic kids bullying people but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater
as much as that is amusing it isn't a good thing in general that last clause on their list is very dubious in terms of potentially suppressing channels that present alternative views whether they be a bit further to the left or to the right than mainstream political parties
the other stuff, nudity, drugs etc.. is much more understandable re: advertisers. The last bit is a potential catch all for simply punishing stuff they don't like, they can do much better with targeted ads - there are plenty of people who'd happily sponsor the young turks videos and likewise people who's happily sponsor alt right videos too.
That's unlikely because Google will go at least partially on the number of complaints and at least partially on how fashionable the prejudices are. So the money will be strongly skewed in favour of SJWs since their prejudices are more fashionable and they are more strongly motivated to complain.
For the kind of stuff i'm thinking of I don't think even UKIP would be interested.
Have to say most of the ads i've seen on youtube are pretty related to the content of the video. I'm guessing the advertising is keyword related (like google search), which may be one of the issues. If it is then as much as the ads are targeted there is no way of stopping ads from being shown before videos with controversial subjects, if the keyword is there. The solution is to demonetise them all, especially if there are unlikely to be any advertisers wanting to associate their brand with the content.
It's just business. Google's has crunched the numbers and decided they need to give their customers more control over the adverts they pay for.
Want advertisers to pay you for your content? Make content advertisers want their brand associated with, pretty simple.
Want advertisers to pay you for your content? Make content advertisers want their brand associated with, pretty simple.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
Going by the awful list of videos that were not approved in the op, I wholeheartedly support this measure, it will hopefully discourage people from uploading absolute **** to youtube to monetise it.
This is what I'm talking about, their clickbait crap should be consigned to oblivion.
This is what I'm talking about, their clickbait crap should be consigned to oblivion.