Advertisers Are Still Boycotting YouTube Over Offensive Videos (go.com) 155
An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press:The fallout from the YouTube boycott is likely to be felt through the rest of this year. Skittish advertisers have curtailed their spending until they are convinced Google can prevent their brands from appearing next to extremist clips promoting hate and violence... At one point, about 250 advertisers were boycotting YouTube... The list included big-spending marketers such as PepsiCo, Wal-Mart Stores, Starbucks, AT&T, Verizon, Johnson & Johnson, and Volkswagen.
It's unclear how many, if any, of those have returned to YouTube since Google promised to hire more human reviewers and upgrade its technology to keep ads away from repugnant videos. Both Verizon and AT&T, two companies that are trying to expand their own digital ad networks to compete with Google, told The Associated Press that they are still boycotting YouTube. FX Networks confirmed that it isn't advertising on YouTube either. Several other boycotting marketers contacted by AP didn't respond.
Thursday CEO Sundar Pichai told analysts that responding to the boycott, Google held "thousands and thousands" of conversations with advertisers, and one analyst now estimates reduced ad spending on YouTube and Google could cost the company $300 million this year alone.
It's unclear how many, if any, of those have returned to YouTube since Google promised to hire more human reviewers and upgrade its technology to keep ads away from repugnant videos. Both Verizon and AT&T, two companies that are trying to expand their own digital ad networks to compete with Google, told The Associated Press that they are still boycotting YouTube. FX Networks confirmed that it isn't advertising on YouTube either. Several other boycotting marketers contacted by AP didn't respond.
Thursday CEO Sundar Pichai told analysts that responding to the boycott, Google held "thousands and thousands" of conversations with advertisers, and one analyst now estimates reduced ad spending on YouTube and Google could cost the company $300 million this year alone.
I didn't notice (Score:5, Insightful)
Who watches Youtube (and ther rest of the internet) without an adblocker anyway?
Re: I didn't notice (Score:1)
Better solution is to just not visit those sites in the first place. They will change their policies if they realize their visitors have dropped since implementing the anti adblock solutions.
If you absolutely must get information from there, use google cache or internet archive or similar. But please don't give them your business!
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube does provide a subscription service. YouTube Red.
I've been test-driving Google Play Music as an alternative to Spotify recently, and subscribing to Google Play Music includes a subscription to YouTube Red. It's nice to not worry about ads or anti-adblock measures from YouTube any more. It's a couple of bucks a month and for people who watch a lot of YouTube, it's pretty reasonable.
Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
But. In order to watch the show, I have to let this neighbor family into the house to watch with me who has a track record of stealing stuff from my yard.
Nah. Chances are I can watch the show another way, and if I can't, I'd still rather not pay some unknown, upfront cost for the pleasure.
Re: I didn't notice (Score:1)
Ironically, I've found that sites that sites that block adblock users often don't have useful content anyway. Win/win!
Re: (Score:3)
Website owners can implement adblock checks all they want, but somebody will come along and develop a way to circumvent it. When the website gets updated, someone will just update the blocklist again. the more popular the website, generally the shorter the delay. Each time it happens, the site developers need to expend time and resources if they want to stay on top of the arms race.
Re: (Score:2)
That's explains why there is a single ad-blocker that most of the people here are recommending.
extremist clips promoting hate and violence (Score:1)
Like Vet Ranch [youtube.com]?
Yeah, those educational and feel-good videos by extremist charity veterinary groups are really shameful.
Re: (Score:3)
..and I wonder what groups are responsible for tarnishing that aspect of the constitution to a point where advertisers don't feel comfortable with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably some of those people owning the 2.5billion smartphones which are out there and using the Youtube app.
I don't bother (Score:2)
I have definitely noticed. I'm shopping for my kid's first car and you'd think after the google searches I've done I'd be inundated with car ads. But I think I've seen one. Hell, at one point I googled the ad to see if I could trigger it and no go.
Re: (Score:2)
That means you've forgotten to activate a tracker blocker too.
Re: youtube has adds? (Score:4, Funny)
Children and bathwaters (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos. The problem is that YouTube went overboard and now considers everything "offensive" that's not basically cute kittens playing with yarn, not just extremists videos demanding the execution of everything who follows the wrong delusion.
The problem here is that the reason people went from traditional media and to YouTube is exactly that they're fed up with having "family friendly" bullshit shoved down their throats. If that's all that remains on YouTube, people will simply move on.
And then nobody sees your pretty ads either.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Because they've been convinced that association will occur by social justice retards like yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling people names to bully them for having a different opinion than you is unlikely to decrease their interest in social justice.
Re: (Score:2)
They should follow their own advice if they expect others to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. YouTube shows me ads for assholes peddling their religious bullshit when I watch videos of people debunking the very same religious bullshit. If that's their "targeted" advertising, I hope and pray they never go into making military hardware and if, that they only sell to the enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
I usually only associate ads with "5 4 3 2 1 skip". I rarely see more than the lower right corner of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the issue isn't that when people see the add for Pepsi next to a violent extremist video people will relate that Pepsi is endorsing the video. But the act of continued advertising next to the video is endorsing it. What a lot of companies are slowly realizing is that what they spend money on can often have further reaching consequences. Do you want the PR after the next mass shooting that the kids weapons were funded from your company due too add revenue on his hateful YouTube blog?
Or even with t
Re: (Score:2)
They'll see it as yet another ad that's preventing them from watching what it is they want to watch, and associate the brand with THAT negative experience instead.
Do you want the PR after the next mass shooting that the kids weapons were funded from your company due too add revenue on his hateful YouTube blog?
Did you know that 100% of terrorists breathe oxygen? If you breathe oxygen, you're a terrorist! Do we blame toyota for bank robberies when a corolla is used as a getaway car? No. Societies that reason this way are doomed to total(itarian) failure. Such irrationality should be pointed out and criticized.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the ones peddling this kind of bullshit association are the very same media that first of all now run this smear campaign in a weak attempt to get advertisers back to them from YouTube?
Re: Children and bathwaters (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, YouTube has gone overboard with what they consider offensive. Now, facts are offensive if they hurt the idealistic liberal worldview.
Take a statement like "In the US, Black's have lower IQs than whites." This statement is not at all hate speech. Like it or not, this statement is 100% true. We can debate whether IQ really measures intelligence, oe whether the test is racist or otherwise flawed. We can debate how much of the IQ difference is due to genetics, economic inequalities, or cultural upbringing.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
On the flip side, white people have more Neanderthal genes and the Neanderthal was actually smarter than other humans, so it is
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a racial thing, it's a poverty thing
While that's a cute proposal (and I agree with it), it's not the prevailing narrative from the people talking about this.
The typical narrative here is that blacks are more violent because of their alleged low average IQs. We're told that as one reason why people should be okay with the idea of separating from one another based on race. If you believe it, you have an easy way to stay safe and to avoid the potential that your children may fall in love with one and produce inferior offspring.
Obviously, the onl
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how that proves Neanderthals were smarter than H. sapiens sapiens, and in fact the very article you quote makes no such claim. You just made up the conclusion.
Re: Children and bathwaters (Score:5, Insightful)
So we have this measure which is iffy at best, and in most cases hopelessly biased towards certain socioeconomic groups, but hey, it's a great meme "Blacks are dumber than whites, and it's not racist because this groovy Intelligence Quotient test says so!"
In general, psychology and neurological sciences have long past moved away from IQ, simply because it's absurd to imagine that something as complex as human cognition can be fit into one number, considering cognition itself seems to be the product of multiple processing and memory systems in the brain.
So promoting "whites have higher IQs than blacks" *MAY* be true for some kinds of intelligence tests, that kind of testing is so flawed that it's hard to see how proponents of the claim aren't just racists once again using the cloak of pseudoscience to try to bolster their hatred.
Re: (Score:3)
IQ tests are complete crap. I've got a high enough score that it isn't sour grapes. More like syrupy grapes. Total complete bullshit, and the funniest part is that to get a high score I have to lie and give the answers that I think the test writer wanted to hear instead of the answers that I think are actually true.
Also, the algebra word problem at the end? The fish is always 72 inches, because the test authors suck at math and only one algebra story problem was ever created for IQ tests, and it was copied
Re: Children and bathwaters (Score:4, Insightful)
Because public schools are run by morons who are still stuck in 1950s in regards to assessing students. As it is, even with standardized IQ tests, the numbers have been rising in many populations, including African-Americans for decades, suggesting that what IQ measures isn't really raw cognitive capacity at all (ie. the Flynn Effect).
One of the biggest reasons for lower cognitive ability isn't genetic at all, but poor nutrition during the developmental years, and that's one of the reasons that socio-economic status has been viewed as a significant player in general and specific cognitive abilities. There's no doubt there's a genetic component, but like anything, genetics sets general parameters, and it is environment that takes over after conception. Considering that many ethno-racial groups in the Americas have not been equal beneficiaries of over all socio-economic improvements, that would strike me as a good reason for why we see phenomena like the Flynn Effect. But that's a rather dull explanation, and not one that allows some Neo-nazi to declare he's superior to African-Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact (and this is actually a fact) they found Muslims born during certain months every year had lower birth rates (and intelligence and health and ...). The same months... over and over.
Why? Turns out these women all fast during Ramadan, and the kids are more likely to have problems if the mother fasts closer to conception than further away.
Infer whatever you want. But it's an interesting factoid.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
IQ tests are problematic, and are at best general indicators. And seeing as socio-economic conditions can and do influence IQ scores (see the Flynn Effect [wikipedia.org]), trying to use IQ averages in populations to justify claims "whites are smarter thank blacks" makes IQ tests even more problematic.
Probably the best way to up general IQ scores in a population is to assure children get proper nutrition in infancy and childhood. So the real observation here is that IQ scores are probably measuring other phenomenon other t
Re: Children and bathwaters (Score:4, Insightful)
That post didn't say these tests were complete indicators of ability. In fact, it said otherwise. The truly 'problematic' thing is the constant drenching of science in political correctness to make it impossible for the public (and possibly many researchers) to tell what's factually correct.
But hey, I get it, it's the age of the alt-right, where saying "Blacks are dumber than whites" is now apparently some sort of unassailable dogma, and where a previous generation's debunked or at least heavily questioned claims are brought back and again asserted to be absolute truth.
Actually, no. The current trend hasn't changed much. It's just that these snowflakes didn't get their way with one specific election, and being the snowflakes they are, they bitch and whine that this is the end of the world.
The reality is that the left still controls the majority of the media and public discussion on these topics. It's nearly impossible to debate them openly, and even when it does happen, it's impossible to point out logical or factual errors in their viewpoints without being labeled as some form of bigot. This is coupled with a real risk of getting kicked out of school/work (there's an example of systemic oppression) by their local socjus fifth column, whether it's the campus 'diversity' office or HR.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The statement may be factual but usage is racist (Score:3)
Re: Children and bathwaters (Score:1)
Here are the facts that we know:
"Donald Trump won Tuesdayâ(TM)s election by racking up big margins in counties that are, on average, older, whiter and less-educated than the rest of the U.S."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-trump-got-his-edge/
"Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump"
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Im a Professional Electrician, Working Class. Please tell me more about how "professionals" dont work.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an electrician is not a "profession"?
Wow. Just wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos. The problem is that YouTube went overboard and now considers everything "offensive" that's not basically cute kittens playing with yarn, not just extremists videos demanding the execution of everything who follows the wrong delusion.
The problem here is that the reason people went from traditional media and to YouTube is exactly that they're fed up with having "family friendly" bullshit shoved down their throats. If that's all that remains on YouTube, people will simply move on.
And then nobody sees your pretty ads either.
The people who are really supporting the offensive videos are the viewers. The add just comes with the viewer click. Just put a disclaimer on all ads, "we are not endorsing any content, but you are by clicking on it".
I gotta agree with the advertisers here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos.
Yeah, what bullshit to think that an ad appearing immediately before a video might get associated with a video.
The problem is that YouTube went overboard and now considers everything "offensive" that's not basically cute kittens playing with yarn, not just extremists videos demanding the execution of everything who follows the wrong delusion.
No, the problem is not that Google considers those videos "offensive". It's that advertisers consider them "offensive" and don't want to advertise on them.
You can still post a video that isn't "family friendly", but big companies don't want to advertise on your video and Google won't make them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what bullshit to think that an ad appearing immediately before a video might get associated with a video.
Yes, frankly, what bullshit.
Unless an ad is an explicit tie-in with the video content, I am not going to assume that the advertiser gives any endorsement (or rejection) of the content. Why would I?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what bullshit to think that an ad appearing immediately before a video might get associated with a video.
Yes, frankly, what bullshit.
Unless an ad is an explicit tie-in with the video content, I am not going to assume that the advertiser gives any endorsement (or rejection) of the content. Why would I?
So lets ignore the entire (in my opinion legitimate) problem of negative impression through association, and instead just concentrate on just the people who, when they see a video before an ad, assume the advertiser more or less chose to advertise on that specific video (or style of video).
Now consider a video posted by a neoNazi.
Think about the people who realize you didn't choose that video (or don't realize but don't care), how much is that ad impression worth to you?
Now think about the people who see th
Re: (Score:2)
I love it when people invoke their own reason for using a specific tool as the only reason anyone uses it.
Youtube became big because, basically, it's just easy to find videos. It has nothing to do with trying to avoid "family values", that's just your own rationale (and honestly, I don't actually believe it's even your's, you're just trying to show your weird alt-right street cred).
And if Youtube is going to be supported by ads, then advertisers have some considerable right to demand that their products not
Re: (Score:2)
Did you see the list of companies in TFS? For at least half of them an association with Nazi terrorist puppy mulchers would improve their image.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you see the list of companies in TFS? For at least half of them an association with Nazi terrorist puppy mulchers would improve their image.
And YouTube is all they have now that Bill O'Reilly is off the air. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos
Except that isn't it.
There are literal terrorist groups that have videos on YouTube. The thing is, if an advert appears next to their videos, they get some money.
Do you really not understand why people don't want to actively find terrorist groups?
Nothing gives anyone the reasonable expectation that they need to be paid for their speech.
The problem is that YouTube went overbo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it is all total bullshit and the arseholes at Alphabet are part of the lie. Mass censorship targeting anti-corporate messages. Basically scammy Alphabet are playing along to see if the can drive away content producers they can not dictate too and control. This is for establishment control over the political messaging the public is allowed to see and as approved by the piece of shit corporations. They want the corporate political advertisement tied to the consumer advertisement, the empty tied to the us
Re: (Score:2)
That makes no sense. First if Alphabet just wanted to please the corporate overlord, why did they allow anti-corporate content-approved to make money until now?
And second, and more importantly, many people who do post "controversial" content (read: Content that may make very special people feel a bit uncomfortable because it kills their batshit insane narrative with a dose of reality) are dependent on that income from YouTube. They made YouTube their "job" so to speak, and them making content is dependent o
Re: (Score:2)
So you think someone who is promoting the killing of homosexuals isn't hate speech?
Re: (Score:1)
So, for example, when conservatives called the Lucifer show offensive and tried to get advertisers to boycott it it was because they were special snowflakes?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Being a Special Snowflake is not a matter of right/left, rather it's an additional axis. It's plain that the types of behaviors associated with the Snowflakes are present on both sides of the political spectrum. On the left, we have the Intersectional Feminist/Progressives and their opposites in autism, the Alt-right. Identity politics wouldn't be possible without opposing parties, the Alt-right is a "reactionary" response to the activities of the Radical Social Justice crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
I love that you said both sides have snowflakes but failed to mention examples of right-wing people being snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it works just fine on the channels that debunk religious bullshit, too. It's not a left vs. right thing. It's more a reality vs. feelgood-makebelieve thing.
Oddly Enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
YouTube seems to be putting almost no effort into finding ways to limit offensive ads placed over entertaining YouTube videos.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish they would let you give a thumbs up/down to the ads. Sure, even on the less insulting/annoying ads they would get 90% thumbs down, but the exact ratio of views to votes and total count would be extremely interesting.
Fine (Score:1)
Question to the advertisers: Where are you going to run your advertisements that has at least as many eyeballs as youtube? Let that sink in for a moment.
You have the choice between not advertising or advertising. You can be lucky Google cares enough to cater to you needs.
Re: (Score:2)
And less money to jackoffs who make the videos. It's win-win, I agree.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about most stuff. I find the tutorials on how to do stuff around the house pretty useful when the washing machine won't drain. Also, there are some rare clips of musical performances from years gone by that are impossible to find anywhere else (Bill Evans Quartet playing in someone's living room in Finland comes to mind)
But the videos advertisers are running away from are the ones where some guy in his mom's basement is looki
Re: (Score:2)
And less money to jackoffs who make the videos. It's win-win, I agree.
I agree. If the video really deserves rewarding them, and they're making it in hopes of getting a reward, I can pay them through some sort of patronage site. They all seem to have links to those.
Just because I watched at least n% of the video does not automatically mean they deserve some money, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to spend time as a service provider to do some activity to reward them.
If they want to go to war over ads, and I end up only watching videos at archive.org, I'm OK with that. I
Marketing Opportunity (Score:3)
That should drive ad prices lower for brands that are less susceptible to bullying by special interest groups, right?
Is Google actually allowing market elasticity on ad prices? The biggest problem I see with being randomly assigned to whatever video is that it might be a sign of very poor targeting. I mean, white supremacists aren't likely to go out for Chinese food tonight, right? But they probably still need to buy laundry detergent .
Nobody really thinks that Tide is refusing to sell detergent to these boorish idiots. I wonder who actually spends time watching their videos and thinks "well, Tide obviously supports their views." I find "reality TV" offensive to my sensibilities but the only connection I make there is that the advertisers want the audience's money.
And there's the rub - thinking that attacking supply will eliminate demand is folly, but attacking demand is hard and the bullies are ultimately lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
It does lower the price of ads for those companies who aren't as picky.
They are the only winners here. Content producers and Google are not happy because cheaper ads mean less money for them. As for viewers, they still see the same amount of advertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
If the companies had been choosing offensive keywords, then those prices would come down.
But they're not choosing offensive keywords. They're choosing totally clean keywords and the ads run next to offensive ads anyways. So the relative demand for a particular keyword is unaffected by any of this.
The first step is admitting you have a problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Um. you DID opt-in, by using their service.
I'm still boycotting Advertisers.... (Score:3)
I'm still blocking all the ad's I can until the advertising networks start vetting their ad's and actually paying for real bandwidth. Almost every website loads twice as fast if you block the big ad network domains.
Re: (Score:2)
And take responsibility for the malicious crap that can come across their networks too. Forbes got nailed for this when a bunch of web security folks went there to read an article about a colleague, disabled adblockers per Forbes, and were promptly served up malware.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I'll try the webcache if it is linked from someplace like google news and they're doing a bait-and-switch on the bots to get the content linked.
But if it still doesn't work, I wouldn't turn off the ad-blocker. You should always expect to get burned if you do. If the data is interesting, it is probably already mirrored somewhere or reported elsewhere.
The only sites that important are ones that wouldn't have tried to stop my access in the first place.
Not going to work (Score:2, Insightful)
These companies don't understand that YouTube is not, and can never be, like traditional media. If anything, the marketing teams should be fired for a total, epic failure to even remotely understand the nature of the platform they were using.
What I would tell Google to do is a few things to counteract.
1. Allow anyone to monetize, provided their content is accurately self-rated along a ESRB-style rating system (with checkboxes for WHY it is rated that way).
2. Create communities of interest such as "family,"
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, the point 4 makes you totally supporter of free speech - except speech you dislike. If you want free speech, you need to accept that people will disagree with you about everything including definition or need for free speech. That is what free speech is.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh fuck off you blithering moron. Advertisers have been pushing around their weight for fucking ever. Jesus fucking Christ, you couldn't even show an interracial kiss on TV in the 1960s without most of a network's southern affiliates refusing to broadcast the fucking episode, because their advertisers would freak out and pull their ads.
It's like people like you have lived in some weird bubble where you know absolutely fuck all about how the actual world fucking works. In an advertiser-supported platform, th
Re: (Score:2)
4. Last, but not least, fire all of the damn SJWs. Easiest way to accomplish this: put out an anonymous workplace survey that says "do you consider hate speech that is not a direct incitement to violence to be protected, free speech." Anyone who disagrees with that probably holds views that are anathema to the long term health of any speech-centered tech platform or product.
This is what is wrong with most places today. That sort of thing should NOT be anonymous. Its should be mission statement from management. It should be made clear to employees that if they can't embrace that they ought to start looking for jobs elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>3. Be blunt: if you ain't making us money, your content is going to be lower in search results over content that is.
Terrible idea. What makes YouTube great, or at least better, is that it ranks stuff based on interest and user interaction, rather than commercial considerations.
>fire all of the damn SJWs
Does that go for the ones making videos too? The Sargons and the Teal Dears?
Ineffective and wrong. (Score:2)
I think it's just another political stunt to try and manipulate social media into stifling free speech. I'm not saying I agree with the "hate" videos i
Re:Ineffective and wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are corporate ad buyers... They don't get much more conservative than that. That's why people are protesting, they are upset than make up tips for trans women videos are being demonetized because of corporate transphobia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's just another political stunt to try and manipulate social media into stifling free speech. I'm not saying I agree with the "hate" videos in question, but if you want to have free speech, then you've got to have free speech. sheesh.
The problem of course, is that what is offensive has already creeped into areas that are not particularly offensive, unless people consider everything that does not agree with them as offensive.
Another issue is that people tend to frame their arguments as a liberal versus conservative based thing. Both the far left and far right are guilty.
And now it has extended into areas which are merely political in nature, not remotely violent, say like "The Young Turks", or "An Ear for Men". areas where the loud
Re: (Score:2)
unless people consider everything that does not agree with them as offensive.
I believe that's pretty much what's going on in the world. Of course, there are always exceptions but generally it's this.
Re: (Score:1)
1. YouTube didn't make $79.38 billion in ad revenue last year. Google did. YouTube is a subsidiary company of Google and should be independently attempting to maximize its profits.
2. The boycott has (unfortunately) actually been quite successful at forcing YouTube to change their advertising policies, since they have removed ad revenue from most channels that are "alt right" or "alt light".
Re: (Score:1)
confused (Score:2)
And....? (Score:2)
"Advertisers Are Still Boycotting YouTube Over Offensive Videos"
As is their right to do.
Youtube has the right to advertise, and people have the right to boycott products and services that they don't like or that support things they don't like. What's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you people always show up? Nobody is debating they have the LEGAL RIGHT to do any goddamn thing.
We're debating whether it's ETHICALLY right, as well whether it's an EFFECTIVE solution to their problem.
Fuck off with Red Herring bullshit.
This is like that other over-used Slashdot argument, "Freedom of speech is only for the government!" (conflating the constitutional Bill of Rights _acknowledgement_ of Freedom of Speech with the actual _invention_ of the idea which goes all the way back to ancient Athe
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you people always show up?
Because people like you are assholes, that's why.
Fuck off with Red Herring bullshit.
Fuck off yourself, goober.
Just have a whitelist (Score:2)
Have advertisers opt in to a video/channel whitelist. Problem solved. Better to get some revenue than none.
Re: (Score:2)
You still have to police the videos, because it's not like the automated systems can tell with any reliability if you've put a Neo-nazi video in the Cute Fwuffy Bunny Video channel.
So short GOOG stock? (Score:1)
Offensive videos? (Score:2)
Offensive videos? Like Pewdiepie making fun of white supremecists [businessinsider.com]? Cowardice is the only excuse for interpreting his video as antisemitic. Fear of stupid customers misinterpreting statements. These companies are surely too big to care about being respected, but I respect companies that have more spine.