- 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 9/10/17 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/10/17 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Not as long as it's still effective. I think he should tone it back a bit because at this point the crazies are gonna demonize him not matter what he says. It strengthens his case when he's not saying anything controversial and the left is still losing their shite.
0
Posted on 9/10/17 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
demonitizes Dave Rubin's channel
Holy shite they've jumped the shark.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 9:48 am to SlowFlowPro
1)The channel is not demonetized, even Rubin Report acknowledges that.
2) Google is choosing not run ads on only some of the "more controversial" videos
3) Google is a private company to do as they please.
4) Google realizes that their sponsors may not want to be associated with such crap.
5) Google may not want to reward some of the more controversial videos with money.
6) We hate our free market today, don't we folks?
2) Google is choosing not run ads on only some of the "more controversial" videos
3) Google is a private company to do as they please.
4) Google realizes that their sponsors may not want to be associated with such crap.
5) Google may not want to reward some of the more controversial videos with money.
6) We hate our free market today, don't we folks?
This post was edited on 9/10/17 at 9:51 am
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:05 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
6) We hate our free market today, don't we folks?
Noone has said they need to shut YouTube down. Jesus, talk about a massive strawman.
This post was edited on 9/10/17 at 10:06 am
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:09 am to Jcorye1
quote:
Noone has said they need to shut YouTube down. Jesus, talk about a massive strawman.
I realize that. But you all are hating on a private company for choosing not to monetarily reward someone for some of his "more controversial" videos.
We hate the rights to private businesses today, don't we focus?
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:16 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I realize that. But you all are hating on a private company for choosing not to monetarily reward someone for some of his "more controversial" videos.
We hate the rights to private businesses today, don't we focus?
Wrong again. Everyone is voicing their displeasure with the actions of YouTube not saying they do not have the right to do what they are doing (an important distinction you are failing to see).
The continued thought policing by YouTube and Google is only driving the alt-tech movement (e.g., Minds, Gab, Vidme, DuckDuckGo, etc.). People don't like being censored and some of the larger content creators like Rubin can take their content elsewhere and cripple YouTube.
Google is not indestructible. If they keep this shite up people will speak up by take their business elsewhere. This is slowly happening now but will only accelerate in the future imo.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:24 am to jclem11
quote:
The continued thought policing by YouTube and Google
Wrong again.
The videos are still on YouTube They can now be seen more quickly without ads. They are simply not monetarily rewarding the person for some of his videos.
This post was edited on 9/10/17 at 10:25 am
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
I have no idea howYoutube works.
Is there a contract in place?
I'm assuming there is if money is exchanging hands.
What does the contract say?
If no contract then there really isn't anything he can say
Is there a contract in place?
I'm assuming there is if money is exchanging hands.
What does the contract say?
If no contract then there really isn't anything he can say
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:33 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Wrong again.
The videos are still on YouTube They can now be seen more quickly without ads. They are simply not monetarily rewarding the person for some of his videos.
You are quite myopic on this topic. It is about more than just monetization of videos but rather about censorship of even innocuous content by YouTube by placing them in "limited state" and removing them from recommended videos and other ways.
Many of these content creators get funding from other sources (patreon, paypal, etc.). Dave likely doesn't give a frick about youtube revenue. His support comes from Patreon.
Check out this video on the subject by a YouTuber who does not monetize his channel.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:41 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I realize that. But you all are hating on a private company for choosing not to monetarily reward someone for some of his "more controversial" videos.
They're not controversial. Lets face it, the only reason this is happening is that Trump won the election and they largely blame YouTube for it. Anyone who isn't a Leftist Youtube demonetizes it. It's all propaganda. YouTube can legally do this, but they can no longer call themselves a free speech platform.
This all originates from the hit piece from the WSJ/News Corp on PewDiePie. That's all it is. PewDiePie should sue the WSJ for defamation, and if he won, every YouTuber would be able to sue WSJ in return. It would be incredible after all of this if PewDiePie ended up owning News Corp due to how many people were affected by that piece.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:41 am to redneck hippie
quote:
I have no idea howYoutube works.
Is there a contract in place?
I'm assuming there is if money is exchanging hands.
What does the contract say?
If no contract then there really isn't anything he can say
To my knowledge, the only contract is the TOS (terms of service), which YouTube modifies and changes from time to time. There is ad revenue which is earned by content creators for each view their video gets if they choose to monetize a video.
YouTube has been mass demonetizing channels for a while now, the so called "adpocalypse" which has hurt content creators who do this stuff for a living.
The content creators have every right to bitch about the current system because YouTube would not exist without them. Google simply provides the platform but YouTube would not exist if the content creators all left. Kind of like how noone gives a frick about Myspace anymore because all the users abandoned the platform. Same will happen to YouTube if they continue to abuse their power and piss off content creators.
The alt-tech movement will come in and replace YouTube if they keep it up. It won't happen over night but will be a slow shift as creators migrate to other platforms. Some creators are already doing that now.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
So, according to Youtube policy:
So I assume that anything promoting transgender surgery and hormone therapy is not advert eligible?
quote:
Harmful or dangerous acts: Video content that promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury is not eligible for advertising. Some examples include videos depicting painful or invasive surgical or cosmetic procedures, or pranks involving sexual harassment or humiliation.
So I assume that anything promoting transgender surgery and hormone therapy is not advert eligible?
Posted on 9/10/17 at 10:49 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
4) Google realizes that their sponsors may not want to be associated with such crap.
frick off. You obviously know nothing about the channel, clown.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 11:03 am to McLemore
quote:
Techno-fascist Shitlords. Get used to the term.
Revenge of the Nerds.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 11:14 am to jclem11
quote:
It is about more than just monetization of videos but rather about censorship of even innocuous content by YouTube by placing them in "limited state" and removing them from recommended videos and other ways.
Like I said, today most of you are hate on a private business acting on its rights. Most here will argue to death and support the actions of a baker to refuse to bake a gay cake (I support that as well). Switch the issue at hand and the comments flip.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 11:16 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Most here will argue to death and support the actions of a baker to refuse to bake a gay cake (I support that as well). Switch the issue at hand and the comments flip.
There are tons of bakers. Alphabet is monopolizing many platforms across the internet. They can do whatever they want but actions like these are dangerous.
Posted on 9/10/17 at 11:17 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Like I said, today most of you are hate on a private business acting on its rights.
So, what you believe is that people can support the rights of private business and no matter how silly or political it is, you can't dislike their decision? That's retarded
Posted on 9/10/17 at 11:21 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
But you all are hating on a private company for choosing not to monetarily reward someone for some of his "more controversial" videos.
a. none are controversial to any rational actor
b. information is the key to a free market. we are disseminating information
quote:
We hate the rights to private businesses today, don't we focus?
straw man only used by legitimate idiots
nobody is saying that Google's moves here should be illegal
Posted on 9/10/17 at 11:22 am to jclem11
quote:
The continued thought policing by YouTube and Google is only driving the alt-tech movement (e.g., Minds, Gab, Vidme, DuckDuckGo, etc.). People don't like being censored and some of the larger content creators like Rubin can take their content elsewhere and cripple YouTube.
also this completely invalidates any complaints by these companies re: net neutrality
they are not neutral and don't want a neutral internet. any proclamations claiming they support a free internet are invalidated by these moves
Posted on 9/10/17 at 11:24 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Most here will argue to death and support the actions of a baker to refuse to bake a gay cake
in terms of legality, not morality
who in this thread has advocated for administrative or criminal actions against Google/Youtube?
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News