- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Youtube demonitizes Dave Rubin's channel
Posted on 9/11/17 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/11/17 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
0
Posted on 9/11/17 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
just saw that Twitter banned Sargon
Double-Plus ungood think will not be tolerated.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 10:44 am to SlowFlowPro
Censoring Rubin is the strangest yet.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 10:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
just saw that Twitter banned Sargon
And yet people will still say capitalism, despite the fact that these people don't really care about capitalism... monetarily at least. The real reason they're trying to censor YouTube is the media lost control over the message, and the people controlling the message no longer answer to the Big Six. They're making more money than ever with Trump in power, but with Trump in power, they've lost their own.
And don't be surprised when Twitter bans people like Joe Rogan simply because he has people like Milo and Sargon of Akkad on his podcast.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 11:08 am to SlowFlowPro
More "net neutrality". I thought all content should be treated equally?
Posted on 9/11/17 at 11:13 am to OMLandshark
Now that they hit Rubin, I immediately wondered how long Joe Rogan had left
Posted on 9/11/17 at 11:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now that they hit Rubin, I immediately wondered how long Joe Rogan had left
Was wondering the same. They have the same guests on (sans MMA folks)
Posted on 9/11/17 at 12:08 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
Good points in your post, but disagree with above. The platform would certainly take a hit, but YouTube existed and grew before the influx of semi-professional content providers (most of us probably remember its launch). I would bet a lot of people still just go there for movie trailers and music (and the occasional puppy video)--not to hear one more rando talk about his take on politics.
I think it holds true regardless of the genre of content. Content creators who make cooking or make up tutorials that get demonetized should be outraged as well (note I am not aware of any such channels being demonetized other than one food review channel. This is more just a hypothetical for discussion sake). At the very least all content creators should be outraged at the lack of transparency and clarity in what content will be demonetized. As it currently stands, mass demonetization and what appears to be censoring of certain speech is causing strife in the YouTube community.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 12:15 pm to jclem11
quote:
I think it holds true regardless of the genre of content. Content creators who make cooking or make up tutorials that get demonetized should be outraged as well (note I am not aware of any such channels being demonetized other than one food review channel. This is more just a hypothetical for discussion sake). At the very least all content creators should be outraged at the lack of transparency and clarity in what content will be demonetized. As it currently stands, mass demonetization and what appears to be censoring of certain speech is causing strife in the YouTube community.
This is sort of the heart of my point.
Where does it end?
Advertisers previously had to see you as an 'open forum' (with some limited and fairly clear cut exceptions, of course) and take that for what it is -- which I would argue is a big part of the reason it exists as it is and a big part of the appeal to advertisers.
Now that they are opening the door to the idea that they will limit content based on the position of that content, what's to stop other people using "advertisers" to lean on other content they don't like?
You're either an open forum for ideas or you're not. This is a bigger deal than I think they realize, I would suggest.
This post was edited on 9/11/17 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 9/11/17 at 12:30 pm to Y.A. Tittle
the sad part is i bet most of these companies don't actually give a frick but don't want to be called racists so they have to react
Posted on 9/11/17 at 12:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the sad part is i bet most of these companies don't actually give a frick but don't want to be called racists so they have to react
But, if YouTube simply holds fast to a purely neutral policy of not really policing ANY content, it's much easier for an "advertiser" to say advertising on YouTube has nothing to do with endorsing or taking any position on any particular idea. They are simply advertising on the "open forum."
It's Pandora's Box, now.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the sad part is i bet most of these companies don't actually give a frick but don't want to be called racists so they have to react
The really sad part is that these companies don't realize that they would be better off if they just call out these whiny leftists on their absurd nonsense rather than cower to it.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 2:30 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Don't think you can just assume that.
The really sad part is that these companies don't realize that they would be better off if they just call out these whiny leftists on their absurd nonsense rather than cower to it.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 2:31 pm to Iosh
quote:
Don't think you can just assume that.
If you sell a damn good product, you can.
Chic-fil-a is a great example.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 2:31 pm to Iosh
i do think if Pepsi can survive a commercial where Kylie Jenner solves the world's problems by giving people soda, other companies can survive their ads being randomly distributed on Youtube
Posted on 9/11/17 at 2:37 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
Noone has said they need to shut YouTube down. Jesus, talk about a massive strawman
We need nationalized domain providers.
If a group of people has enough money, they can effectively shut down free speech. It's happening now.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 2:46 pm to uway
Before the internet...how was content distributed? Did Gad Saad, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin or Joe Rogan or the like exist on any scale? I like all of those guy's content but I think 10 years ago none of them would have any type of platform.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 2:48 pm to cwill
Rogan would've turned out basically the same, he was already semi-famous as a comedian. He'd just have a radio show instead of a podcast.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 2:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
he sad part is i bet most of these companies don't actually give a frick but don't want to be called racists so they have to react
Twitter thread
It's basically a protection racket.
#16 in that thread
You have to follow that guy on twitter.
Posted on 9/11/17 at 2:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Dave Rubin
Who?
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News