- 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 9/12/17 at 11:15 am to Iosh
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:15 am to Iosh
quote:
This doesn't sound like an alternative to capitalism.
This shouldn't dictate the message and hold people hostage if they want to view the material. If I owned a company, all I'd really care about is if enough people saw my advertising. Save for snuff and porn films. I wouldn't really give a shite.
YouTube was doing this fine for years. It's all based on a lie that they blame YouTube and Twitter for Trump winning the election. They shouldn't be able to dictate if that message should see the light of day. If you're ok that, just keep baitin' and watching "Owww My Balls", because that's the type of society we'll become if we think that the dollar is always right.
2
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:21 am to OMLandshark
quote:No one is being prevented from viewing the material. Dave Rubin is being prevented from collecting one particular kind of revenue stream. (Still makes $25k a month off Patreon. Think he'll be okay.)
This shouldn't dictate the message and hold people hostage if they want to view the material.
Unless you or someone else here wants to nut up and say "the government should dictate the terms of Youtube's agreement with its advertisers" I'm just gonna write all this off as autistic screeching.
This post was edited on 9/12/17 at 11:23 am
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:23 am to OMLandshark
Relax, the free market is going to find a solution.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:27 am to JasonMason
quote:
who is entitled to youtube's money? surely the creators that drive the traffic and views? without them, what good is youtube?
maybe entitled isn't the proper word, but rubin drives traffic to youtube which makes youtube money.
This is my point as well. YouTube will go the way of Myspace if the content creators leave for another platform like bitchute or vidme. Google and YouTube are playing with fire here because they are not indestructible like they think. People hate being censored and they will continue to seek alternatives.
I watch a ton of YouTube content regularly and hate the direction they are going. I will certainly leave the platform if the content I enjoy goes elsewhere.
quote:
i just found out recently that youtube takes 30% from superchats. that sounds like a large number to me.
Yea -- YouTube is double fricking content creators now. First the adpocalypse and now taking a 30% cut of superchats. Creators are finding ways around this as well.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:33 am to Iosh
quote:
Unless you or someone else here wants to nut up and say "the government should dictate the terms of Youtube's agreement with its advertisers"
At what point do people want the government involved? I would assume most people around here agree that we want only government involvement where it is essential. When does google/youtube start to be considered a monopoly though? They can toy with algorithms and basically make traffic essentially disappear for people they disagree with. We really don't want to get to that point.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:33 am to Iosh
quote:
Unless you or someone else here wants to nut up and say "the government should dictate the terms of Youtube's agreement with its advertisers"
Why do people keep throwing out this stupid point that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what is being discussed here?
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:33 am to Iosh
quote:
No one is being prevented from viewing the material. Dave Rubin is being prevented from collecting one particular kind of revenue stream.
But they're depriving Dave Rubin from the money he is was getting with all the traffic and work he has done on the site for total bullshite reasons. If he's not paid for it, getting the same or more views, just because they blame him for Trump's election.
If Hillary were elected President, then this would have never happened. They don't want an independent content creator that doesn't answer to the Big Six. So News Corp/WSJ put out a bullshite article on how YouTubers are Nazis and thus cutting off their funds. As someone put earlier, they're trying to turn YouTube back into TV i.e. Hulu, so they're trying to starve the content creators of their site.
It isn't about Capitalism, it is about controlling the message. What you can't see is you're not defending democracy but instead oligarchy. Sorry but I don't want corporations controlling what I see and hear. If there is a service and they have built an audience, it's bullshite to cut off their funds just because some douchebag at Google or CNN doesn't like what you have to say. I'm the one who is pro-free speech, while you are getting assfricked by corporations and asking for seconds. Corporations very often don't have your best intentions in mind.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:37 am to Iosh
quote:
A corporation free to make advertising deals with other corporations on any mutually agreed terms?
while i'm not saying what they did was in any way illegal, the censorship via deleting Gab shows this is more than just "corporate deals"
there is a moral-political shift going on. it's more than just appeasing advertisers and the Gab issue proves it
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Milo is more provocateur than original thinker and Ben is an intellectual heavyweight
Milo is much more than a provocateur, and in my opinion he understands culture better than Ben does when it comes to certain topics.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:42 am to OMLandshark
quote:I feel like I'm talking to a leftist. Either talk about access or talk about monetization. When you meander from one to the other (like you did in the above two sentences) it nullifies any point you're trying to make. Nobody is being prevented from "seeing and hearing" Rubin.
Sorry but I don't want corporations controlling what I see and hear. If there is a service and they have built an audience, it's bullshite to cut off their funds just because some douchebag at Google or CNN doesn't like what you have to say.
I'm defending neither democracy nor oligarchy. I'm defending the market. Youtube's existence and growth over the past 10 years is proof that your imagined oligarchy is just that.
This post was edited on 9/12/17 at 11:43 am
Posted on 9/12/17 at 11:54 am to Iosh
quote:
Nobody is being prevented from "seeing and hearing" Rubin.
While this is true, it's complicated. Google/youtube are trying to make it harder for people like Rubin to exist. If you are denying that, then you aren't being completely honest. Dave Rubin is one of the bigger creators so the demonetization does not affect him like the smaller or mid-level creators. Rubin can continue to do this because of his patreon and from other donations to him. Google/youtube is essentially silencing others that were making enough to put their focus into their channel.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 12:03 pm to JasonMason
quote:
Rubin can continue to do this because of his patreon
until the politically minded take that avenue away from him, just like they did with Lauren Southern
Posted on 9/13/17 at 5:50 am to SlowFlowPro
Surprised this didn't get its own SFP treatment. Looks as though video game developers are preparing to move on Pewdiepie, using copyright law, over his latest frickup. I wonder if YouTube makes a play against its biggest attraction.
Campo Santo filing claim with YouTube to have his stream of Firewatch taken down
Campo Santo filing claim with YouTube to have his stream of Firewatch taken down
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News