YouTube Loses Major Advertisers Over Offensive Videos (rollingstone.com) 265
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Rolling Stone: Verizon, AT&T, Johnson & Johnson and other major companies have pulled advertisements from YouTube after learning they were paired with videos promoting extremism, terrorism and other offensive topics, The New York Times reports. Among the other companies involved are pharmaceutical giant GSK, HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland and L'Oreal, amounting to a potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Google-owned company. The boycott began last week after a Times of London investigation spurred many major European companies to pull their ads from YouTube. American companies swiftly followed, even after Google promised Tuesday to work harder to block ads on "hateful, offensive and derogatory" videos. Like AT&T, most companies are only pulling their ads from YouTube and will continue to place ads on Google's search platforms, which remain the biggest source of revenue for Google's parent company, Alphabet. Still, the tech giant offered up a slew of promises to assuage marketers and ensure them that they were fixing the problems on YouTube. Due to the massive number of videos on YouTube -- about 400 hours of video is posted each minute -- the site primarily uses an automated system to place ads. While there are some failsafes in place to keep advertisements from appearing alongside offensive content, Google's Chief Business Officer Philipp Schindler wrote in a blog post that the company would hire "significant numbers" of employees to review YouTube videos and mark them as inappropriate for ads. He also said Google's latest advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning will help the company review and flag large swaths of videos.
It's rock and hard place time for youtube (Score:5, Insightful)
They can either honor the ethos that brought all the eyes to the videos or they can die slowly trying to suck the cock of Wall Street while losing viewers to other video channels. That whole market forces thing is a bitch.
Re: (Score:3)
They can either honor the ethos that brought all the eyes to the videos or they can die slowly trying to suck the cock of Wall Street while losing viewers to other video channels. That whole market forces thing is a bitch.
So it is. Just to clarify, the market in this case is the advertisers, not the people who come to YouTube; they are the livestock that they are trying to sell. So, the market is now deciding that they don't want this sort of cattle; they want people that would potentially be interested in becoming customers of the companies they are advertising for. And the thing is - idiots that keep posting extreme materials online constitute only a tiny minority, but they drive away the huge majority, who don't want to b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, you know what they say about all good things.
Given Europe's attitude towards hate speech and how they enforce "right to be forgotten", I'm surprised that they haven't already erected a GFW at this point and outright blocked youtube, facebook, and twitter, and/or just outright blocked any and all content that might offend somebody in some way unless the police in Germany and France can be given special moderator permissions to delete content as they please.
chip on your shoulder (Score:5, Insightful)
Given Europe's attitude towards hate speech and how they enforce "right to be forgotten", I'm surprised that they haven't already erected a GFW at this point
...said the main living in the glorious country where the simple apparition of a nipple is considered a major mediatic catastrophe, where breast feeding is a public offense, and where anything remotely sexual is sure to traumatise the next few generations of youth. (and where nude bodies are probably terrorism-level material).
To each country and culture its own taboos.
For Germany, it might be hate speech, for France it might be "right to be forgotten", and for the USA it's anything which isn't missionary position with the sole purpose to procreate.
Beware of the nude-nipple-terrorists, America !
Re:chip on your shoulder (Score:5, Informative)
...said the main living in the glorious country where the simple apparition of a nipple is considered a major mediatic catastrophe
Nipples are only banned from broadcast TV. On cable, and on the internet, Americans are nipple tolerant.
where breast feeding is a public offense
Here is a complete exhaustive list of all the American states where public breastfeeding is illegal:
1. Idaho
It is legal everywhere else [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
where breast feeding is a public offense
Here is a complete exhaustive list of all the American states where public breastfeeding is illegal:
1. Idaho
It is legal everywhere else [huffingtonpost.com].
That is 1 state above the threshold for making the criticism legitimate.
I mean breastfeeding... FFS... it is a normal part of life, completely non sexual, and in no way affects anyone other than mother and child.
Re:chip on your shoulder (Score:5, Informative)
That is 1 state above the threshold for making the criticism legitimate.
It is technically illegal in one rural state, yet, despite claims to the contrary [snopes.com], there is no record of anyone ever being procesecuted in Idaho for feeding a baby.
It is a total non-issue, and anyone upset about the zero women who have gone to jail is just looking for some phony manufactured issue to be outraged about.
So God bless motherhood, and God bless the United States of America.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean breastfeeding... FFS... it is a normal part of life, completely non sexual, and in no way affects anyone other than mother and child.
How can you say such a thing; if God had meant women to breast-feed, he would have created them with,... er, never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
You've clearly never typed breast feeding into pornhub.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from, of course, developers, developers, developers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll sum-up your post: To force all breast-feeding mothers outside of public places is a non-issue.
Well, I beg to differ. If you're offended by nature, stay home and clse the shades. Let the mothers breastfeed wherever the fuck they want.
Re: (Score:3)
And it can easily be done elsewhere than in public.
Yes it can. In fact, I'm a little offended seeing you eat. You can easily eat at home. Stop eating in public - To make me more comfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal and socially acceptable, won't get you kicked out of the restaurant or attract abusive comments at the mall, are two entirely different things.
America also seems to have an obsession with toilet habits, particularly those of transgender people.
Re: (Score:2)
...said the main living in the glorious country where the simple apparition of a nipple is considered a major mediatic catastrophe, where breast feeding is a public offense, and where anything remotely sexual is sure to traumatise the next few generations of youth. (and where nude bodies are probably terrorism-level material).
To each country and culture its own taboos. For Germany, it might be hate speech, for France it might be "right to be forgotten", and for the USA it's anything which isn't missionary position with the sole purpose to procreate.
Beware of the nude-nipple-terrorists, America !
Cool story Bro!
You really don't know much about us. But you have a nice far right wing level of pre-judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
89% of all porn made is produced in the USA.
http://www.canadianbusiness.co... [canadianbusiness.com]
Ahem...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nipples are rampant on PBS.
That's because the shows are British. This will go on until sharia law is imposed over there, at which time we will have to import our PBS nipples from, say, Canada.
Re: It's rock and hard place time for youtube (Score:5, Informative)
To honor the days when the internet was fun: they can suck a llama's ass
I think you have been doing it wrong all these years. You are supposed to whip the llama's ass, not suck it.
Loss of control (Score:2)
When your entire revenue is dependent on quantity with minimal quality investment you lose control. When you lose control things go down hill fast (just see what MySpace and Geocities eventually became). And there is currently no AI that can discriminate between poetry, let alone what certain markets find offensive.
From the other end: Although I don't understand why a potential advertiser would not want to promote their product in front of any audience. These types of things are bound to happen when you dep
Re:Loss of control (Score:5, Informative)
I don't understand why a potential advertiser would not want to promote their product in front of any audience.
It's not that the advertisers care who watches their adverts; the more the merrier no doubt. The issue here is that the producers of unsavoury content are being supported by income provided by the advertisers.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue here is that the producers of unsavoury content are being supported by income provided by the advertisers.
They probably don't really care about that either. What they care about is not being associated in the public mind with such socially unacceptable content, and as a plus by pulling their advertising dollars they can gain free advertisement from the news stories about pulling their ads.
Re: (Score:3)
as a plus by pulling their advertising dollars they can gain free advertisement from the news stories about pulling their ads.
This sounds like a risky strategy. I don't think a headline “MacDonalds pulls funding from ISIS” would be in their interest.
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
So let me get this straight -- racists, misogynists, and terrorists are going to benefit from an ad-free experience, and yet my 6 year old daughter has to put up with ads for mortgages and makeup and other adult stuff when she wants to watch kids videos? WTF did we ever do to you Google that dirtbags get an out from Youtube ads, but the rest of us have to suffer?
Yaz
Re: (Score:3)
So let me get this straight -- racists, misogynists, and terrorists are going to benefit from an ad-free experience, and yet my 6 year old daughter has to put up with ads for mortgages and makeup and other adult stuff when she wants to watch kids videos? WTF did we ever do to you Google that dirtbags get an out from Youtube ads, but the rest of us have to suffer?
Yaz
Daddy? What's erectile dysfunction and should we ask the perdiatrician if cialis is right for me?
Pretty creepy crap for kids to be watching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't be sure, but I'd bet it's similar to light to moderate plaque psoriasis. I don't know whether I should be thankful or not that google thinks I'm a menopausal woman.
Just remember, you may be eligible for substantial compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
Daddy? What's erectile dysfunction and should we ask the perdiatrician if cialis is right for me?
Daddy has no idea what that is, or what it's for ;).
If it were up to me, you'd be modded +5 Funny.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. Kids looking for videos about transgender issues or homosexuality will find that they are now restricted. We are talking about really benign stuff like make-up tips for trans girls and support for victims of transphobic bullying at school.
Google has gone way too far.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. Kids looking for videos about transgender issues or homosexuality will find that they are now restricted. We are talking about really benign stuff like make-up tips for trans girls and support for victims of transphobic bullying at school.
Google has gone way too far.
Sounds like an algorithm coming up against an age restriction issue. Then again, I've never searched for makeup tips for any gender.
Re: Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Those channels also stop getting revenue, which will cause many of them to leave YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. What they will do is simply provide ad space within the video at the start or finish or part way between and for most, that is enough revenue. The only intelligent response from Google to advertisers, do want you ad dollars associated with certain videos, not a problem, review all google videos and decide which ones you will allow your ads to be associated with. The flip side of that is Google should also allow content producers to decide which advertisements they will allow to be associated wit
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can already select (ca) what kinds of ads to run on our channel ..
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them just go down the Patreon route. Even without monetisation, YouTube's free hosting is too good a deal to pass up. You also have the added bonus that you viewers are not being hassled with adverts.
From YouTube's perspective, they'll still make their money with cat videos. The edgy or controversial stuff is a net loss to YouTube. This is why relying exclusively on YouTube monetisation is a very bad idea - your channel can be buggered up for any number of arbitrary reasons. Big YouTubers have enoug
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that who decides what is "inappropriate"? I hear that religious/atheist/political channels are already being demonitized.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had google music or youtube red there wouldn't be ads.
I do agree that it's messed up. Even the dumbest Americans should be capable of realizing that running ads during a youtube video doesn't equal approving of the content. But we didn't have so many idiots, we wouldn't have the problems we do today.
Re: (Score:3)
You use bandwidth without paying for it.
I'm not complaining about the need for ads; it's that they're effectively going to be exempting you from seeing advertising if you're watching terrorist propaganda, or racist rants, or two girls one cup, or whatever else gets deemed "inappropriate", while at the same time happily showing my 6 year old daughter ads for erectile dysfunction medication when see wants to watch "Wheels on the Bus".
If you had google music or youtube red there wouldn't be ads.
Which would be fine if Youtube Red were available in my country. But it isn't. I'm not sure about Google Music --
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they make a YouTube for kids specifically for this purpose?
Also, what in your 6-yr old's search-history has caused Google to think she needs a mortgage?
(note: my now-7-yr uses my computer, but a separate browser profile, for her stuff incl school-work)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you get the memo? Skipping ads or blocking them is incouraging terrorists. A good consumer likes the ads and can't wait to get more of them. He even skips the content in order to see the next ad. And he buys! Oh man, he buys all the crap, especially when he doesn't need it.
Young people must be educated to like ads and grow up to be good consumes.
Re: (Score:2)
God forbid your daughter consumes paid content without you having to pay a dime for it, paps, while people already paid over Patreon say things you disagree with "for free".
My daughter has zero buying power. She doesn't understand the ads. And what's worse, the ads that typically come up aren't even close to age appropriate. This isn't a case of Youtube showing her ads for toys she might ask me for -- they're ads for inappropriate things. They will never generate a sale for the advertiser.
Yet, at the same time, groups that Google (not I) determines to be disagreeable will now have an ad-free experience. I'd actually rather that if they insist on showing my daughter an ad
Re: (Score:2)
To add to that... I've created a child account on my Windows 10 OS, my kids are using it and they watch Youtube videos tailored to their age. However, the ads running there don't match the content type most times, even though I've created a Google account for them alone, hoping that whatever algorithms Google uses would realize all watched content is kid-oriented.
Granted, the recommendations for videos do match the ones they watch, but the ads don't, so I added AdBlock plus and most inappropriate ads went a
Youtube lost me to forced ads. (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a time when I really enjoyed browsing youtube videos. And I didn't really mind a little advertisement break here and there.
But what killed youtube for me - was the now forced (unskippable) ads that often last well into 30 seconds or more, just for checking out a video. I like seeing if I want to watch this or not, now there's a forced ad on every second video I decide to check.
Now, before my dear Slashdotters say "well, you can use adblocker" etc, please keep in mind that a lot of us watch youtube on our "smart-tv" devices, Nintendos, Xbox's Youtube app etc.
Re: Youtube lost me to forced ads. (Score:2, Informative)
So then block the ads with your router. 1 change and it covers all your devices.
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually a good idea, thanks - I'll look into this.
Re: (Score:2)
A router with DDWRT or equivalent is also a good solution for blocking ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Or use a HOSTS file ad blocker.
I have been smiling my way through this entire bitch fest of a thread wondering about all the wonderful ads I have missed and had know idea they existed.
There's a file set maintained by some hobbyist (not our famous slashdot spammer) that provides a HOSTS file for you to drop into your operating system. Another option is running your own DNS and getting one of the "block by domain" tools. I see a few ads on facebook that are fed directly from their servers, but all google t
Re: (Score:2)
please keep in mind that a lot of us watch youtube on our "smart-tv" devices, Nintendos, Xbox's Youtube app etc.
Or use a HOSTS file ad blocker.
Editing the hosts file requires root access. Root access is difficult to come by other than on personal computers. You'd need to run your own DNS to cover devices where only the manufacturer, not the owner, has root.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, don't use a smart-tv. Buy a Roku or Raspberry Pi for all of $35 (either). Or don't buy either, and pay that in eyeball time.
Re:Youtube lost me to forced ads. (Score:5, Informative)
Try adding the following to your router's domain block list:
ssl.google-analytics.com
www-google-analytics.l.google.com
stats.g.doubleclick.net
clients.l.google.com
pagead.l.doubleclick.net
www-googletagmanager.l.google.com
googleadapis.l.google.com
ads.youtube.com
s0.2mdn.net
s1.2mdn.net
googleads.g.doubleclick.net
pubads.g.doubleclick.net
ad.doubleclick.net
static.doubleclick.net
files.adform.net
secure-ds.serving-sys.com
You can now enjoy an ad-free YouTube experience on your TV/games console/phone/tablet.
Re: (Score:2)
Try adding the following to your router's domain block list
Or to your hosts file :)
Re: (Score:2)
DNS66 for Android is a good option too. You need root to edit the hosts file, but DNS66 creates a local VPN instead so no root required. It's open source too.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen an unstoppable advertisement in a very long while. I'm on of those weirdos who actually watch the adverts if they're 30 seconds or less. I figure it's not a big deal for me and it adds a little revenue to the channel.
Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
These companies have been putting so much effort into detecting "hate speech," but the number of times that my wife has had to hit the home button on the Roku to stop a horror movie trailer or something equally inappropriate on content appropriate for preschoolers is truly appalling. But we're not triggered, we just deal with it so we don't count.
Re: (Score:3)
Right you are, Mary was but a child when the predator Joseph popped her cherry. He'd be in prison for that nowadays in any civilized country. They couldn't fess up to a little hanky panky so they told a little fib about "God did it," and 2000 years later, we're still paying the price!
HSBC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that Pewdiepie's viewership and HSBC's clientele have a large overlap. W
Anyway, a company that gets millennials will take that slice of business away from them, so there's little problem here.
Is this San Francisco "offensive" or the real kind (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if "offensive" is defined as "anyone who supports Donald Trump or refuses to accept the new SJW definition of 'equality'" then I have a bit of a problem with that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, "offensive" is defined as racism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, if you don't want your country flooded with illegal immigrants or Muslims, you are racist. *facepalm*
Re: (Score:2)
Trump (really Bannon, Trump's just the mouth piece) managed to make racism OK again. I'll Let that one sink in...
Actually, it started long before those two hit the stage with any power.
See, there is an old story about a boy, and a possibly fictitious wolf...
The way to understand why this happened, is to go take your mirror off the wall, put it on the floor in a well lit room, take off your pants, and slowly sit on it while closely looking at the mirror. Nobody cares anymore about what you think is "racism" because you said it about everybody and everything. Which is probably the case with your opinion here too. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
You can't really accuse YouTube of accepting the "SJW definition" of anything, because they have started restricting access to trans make-up advice videos and anything with the world "gay" in the title. They are getting a beating on Twitter for it but don't seem to be relenting.
If anything, it seems like they have taken the alt-right definition of "offensive".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh grow up.
Because if "offensive" is defined as...
If you're ignorant then you've been trying to be and you're exceptionally foolish jumping right into the converstation, putting forth your deeply held opinions without the slightest connection to the story.
If you're not ignorant then you know EXACTLY what is going on, you are just trying to stir up shit about people you hate (and by the way you're a fuckwit), namely SJWs
You very well know that big money spending advertisers have pulled advertising because t
Re: (Score:2)
They don't support extremism. If you suggest extremism might be a thing in their presence, they will swiftly bar you from any and all contact with them, and call all their friends to ensure your cash flows stop and you die a slow death.
Re:Is this San Francisco "offensive" or the real k (Score:5, Interesting)
You were going to say that no matter whether it was relevant of not (which it isn't)
It's absolutely relevant if it's true. Youtube is being very cagey about exactly what videos it means here. The meaning of words like "derogatory" vary SIGNIFICANTLY depending on who you're asking.
Re:Is this San Francisco "offensive" or the real k (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are you objecting to ISIS videos in terms of Trump?
Because the language Google is using sounds like this includes WAY more than just ISIS videos. Words like "derogatory" take on a whole new meaning in Silicon Valley on on college campuses today than they do in red state America. So it's very important to establish EXACTLY whose definitions we're using here and exactly what videos are going to be blacklisted.
Re: (Score:3)
Words like "derogatory" take on a whole new meaning in Silicon Valley on on college campuses today than they do in red state America.
Why not set up your own video streaming site that caters to red state America? You could call it "RedTube."
Re:Is this San Francisco "offensive" or the real k (Score:4, Insightful)
What is "offensive" is defined by the companies who are paying Google to place their ads.
It's defined by the "progressives" that whine the loudest when somebody speaks out against one of their pet causes. The social justice warriors of today are the same breed as the religious right from 20-30 years ago. If these companies had any business sense or corporate responsibility, they would just ignore them instead of trying to appease them.
You could ... (Score:5, Funny)
I noticed that they block you (Score:2)
if you're logged in to google account and running an adblocker while watching Youtube videos; they will eventually mysteriously error out.
But, if you're not logged in and run one, they play fine all day and ad free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Noticed something annoying: in most web pages having an embedded youtube video, Fullscreen doesn't work unless you go to the youtube site"
I noticed things MORE annoying- websites with AUTO PLAYING video. And videos where your only option is to watch a postage stamp or take over the whole freaking monitor (like a "larger" or even full *window* option would be so difficult?)
Fullscreen to be restricted to secure cont (Score:2)
I think that has something to do with browser publishers deprecating the Fullscreen API on cleartext HTTP sites [stackoverflow.com] to make it harder for a man in the middle to impersonate your device's operating system [feross.org]. (Search keyword "secure contexts" [w3.org].). Do the pages an where embedded YouTube video falls to go full screen use HTTPS or cleartext HTTP?
Re: (Score:2)
If open a bunch of videos in tabs to view sequentially, the tabs that have been sitting untouched the longest apparently lose their sessions to expiry so you have to reload that video page. Otherwise I have not experienced what you describe.
the Snowflake Jihad (Score:4, Insightful)
We are under a constant assault by a Snowflake jihad whose understanding of freedom of speech is limited to what they agree with. In America this is probably the darkest time in over 200 years with regards to the Bill of Rights. We are living in an age of the self-righteous perpetually offended punk, a punk without a hint of self-understanding or irony.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. You're welcome to buy a server and host all the racist, hateful videos you care to upload. YouTube isn't required to host them for you, and their advertisers aren't required to pay for the privilege.
Re:the Snowflake Jihad (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny, the same sort of people who rail against corporations and want free speech curtailed are exactly the same ones who decide they want to replace government tyranny with corporate tyranny when it fits their agenda.
If a private business has a right to limit offensive speech on a social media platform in the name of moral righteousness, they have just as much right to deny service to people they find objectionable on the same grounds such as homosexuals or muslims. That's not a world I want. Everyone is offended by SOMETHING.
Would you be OK with ISP's being pressured by moral crusaders to not provide connectivity to people who host "offensive" content because the moral crusaders decide to label everyone they don't agree with "neo-nazis"?
If certain advertisers don't want their ads showing up on a certain channel's content, whatever, that's fine. But to demonetize a channel's videos entirely because some snowflake finds it offensive, that's bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
If a private business has a right to limit offensive speech on a social media platform in the name of moral righteousness, they have just as much right to deny service to people they find objectionable on the same grounds such as homosexuals or muslims.
Not if they want to do business in the the United States they don't. Religious groups are a federally protected class, and with very few exceptions, cannot be denied service on that basis. Sexual orientation is gaining traction as a protected class at the state level; any web-based service discriminating on that basis is likely to run afoul of some of these states' laws [aclu.org] (for clarity, "public accommodation" in the context of that map means a business that is open to the public).
Would you be OK with ISP's being pressured by moral crusaders to not provide connectivity to people who host "offensive" content because the moral crusaders decide to label everyone they don't agree with "neo-nazis"?
No, I wouldn't be OK with that
Re: (Score:2)
If a private business has a right to limit offensive speech on a social media platform in the name of moral righteousness
They do, but why bring up that nonsequiteur? This story has nothing to do with that.
This is about youtube making their only revenue source (advertisers) happy. The advertisers are very much not happy for perfectly good reasons. Alphabet Inc gave up its "don't be evil" mantra years ago. These days all they care about is the almighty dollar.
Something just threatened their bottom line and th
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to think there's some assault on free speech here. There isn't. At all. YouTube isn't taking "offensive" videos down -- not any more than they always have, anyway -- they're just not showing ads on videos the advertisers don't want to be associated with. The free speech of the people uploading the videos is fully intact, and in fact YouTube continues giving them a free soapbox from which to reach the world. The free speech of the advertisers is also being honored, by allowing them to avoid appearin
Re: (Score:2)
I know (Score:2, Troll)
Channels like FeministFrequency are really offensive, sexist, and bigoted. But YouTube tries to live up to free speech ideals, so they try to tolerate people like Anita as much as humanly possible.
Re: (Score:2)
About the only way of getting offended is if you take things massively out of context.
Surely not a lack of honesty. That would never offend anybody.
Oh... were you telling us what is and is not offensive while also instantly proving that you dont find even obvious dishonesty offensive...
Re: (Score:2)
Surely not a lack of honesty. That would never offend anybody.
There are quite a large number of hours of footage. There's bound to be a few mistakes. There's also an awful lot of opinions in them---they are opinion pieces after all---and a difference of opinion is not a lack of honesty no matter how much you disagree.
So sure, if you adopt a very ureasonable attitude then you'll be so offended that you'll have a ig old fainting fit.
Oh... were you telling us what is and is not offensive while also instantly p
Re: (Score:3)
Sarkeesian's problem isn't that she makes "mistakes", it's that her videos are hours upon hours of self-righteous indignation by a pampered privileged princess who has made a career out of appealing to sex-starved male nerds coming to her defense. It's so stupid, it's actually kind of funny.
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh, you finally figured out that judging something "offensive, sexist, and bigoted" is a matter of opinion? Good grief, took you long enough! I'm glad that my sarcastic comment led you to that; that was kind of the point. Now apply that newfound insight to FeministFrequency itself: "it's just like her opinion".
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and the terms "sexist" (prejudice or stereotyping based on sex) and "bigot" (intolerance towards those holding different opinions) clearly apply to Sarkeesian, regardless of whether you agree with her politics.
I suspect she actually does, but since Google favors her political views, they are likely willing to pay a significant price in advertising revenu
Speaking of... (Score:2)
Lovely Google ad yesterday for hot women who are "guaranteed to contact you first". Was something vaguely adverstising as a "bride" site. I guess female prostitution is ok. Should women leave Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of bitching (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly.... (Score:2)
Getting mad at Google when you've decided to use their automated tools to place your ads is kinda stupid. Place your ads intentionally instead of automatically and you won't have this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting mad at Google when you've decided to use their automated tools to place your ads is kinda stupid. Place your ads intentionally instead of automatically and you won't have this problem.
AFAIK Google doesn't allow this...
YouTube's terms of service strictly prohibits burning visual ads into uploaded videos (other than title cards) and Advertisers cannot specify which videos where Ads are placed (other than by general demographics) except for high volume partnership relationships on sponsored channels.
Apparently, the only way to win is not to play the game which is what these advertisers seem to be doing now.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew someone would say this and no, you're the silly one.
The advertisers don't care if google uses automated algorithms or manual placement. They're paying for placement, and google can do it however they like as long as it's to the advertiser's spec. Google chooses to use algorithms becauese it's cheap and they like money.
So google tried to save a buck, fucked up and pissed off some of their largest customers.
What if? (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That was my thought as well.
It would certainly never occur to me to associate an ad, or the company whose product is being advertised, with the content of a video in anything more than a marketing sense. I don't think other users make that connection either. Most people realize that Google is targeting ads toward the individual based on all the data they have accumulated about the person.
It was some social justice crusader working at a newspaper in the UK who started looking for videos containing "hate sp
Youtube needs better ad pairing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All while I dared make and publish a review of Mafia III (not a professional review, just a bunch of game video captures with commentary) and I promptly got dinged by their algorithm for about 10 seconds of silence where "Somebody to Love" could be heard playing in the background, in-game.
A copyright owner using Content ID claimed some material in your video.
This is just a heads up
Don’t worry. You’re not in trouble and your account standing is not affected by this.
There are either ads running on your video, with the revenue going to the copyright owner, or the copyright owner is receiving stats about your video’s views.
Video title: Mafia III - 5 months later (Review)
Copyrighted content: Somebody To Love
Claimed by: SME
So... I work for a few hours, put together a review, expect my 50 cents of revenue (I don't have many subscribers or views anyway, it's more like a side hobby of mine) but noooo... because there's an excerpt of music in th