Google and YouTube Will Cut Off Ad Money For Climate Change Deniers (theverge.com) 248
Google will no longer allow advertisers, publishers, and YouTube creators to monetize content that denies the existence of climate change. The Verge reports: The company detailed the changes in a support document on Thursday. "Today, we're announcing a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change," the Google Ads team said in the document. "This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change."
Google says it will use a mix of automated tools and human reviews to enforce the policy. "When evaluating content against this new policy, we'll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim," Google said. Ads will still be allowed on climate topics like public debates on climate policy, research, and more, according to Google.
Google says it will use a mix of automated tools and human reviews to enforce the policy. "When evaluating content against this new policy, we'll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim," Google said. Ads will still be allowed on climate topics like public debates on climate policy, research, and more, according to Google.
Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be honest, videos aren't a good way to get reliable climate change information. You're going to get some kind of entertainment pretending to be science.
If you want to understand, you need to read and sometimes do math.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's be honest, videos aren't a good way to get reliable climate change information.
Videos are a perfectly fine way of getting climate change information. The only question is the content of those videos. That is neither better nor worse than the content of any other medium. You can find just as much written text peddling bullshit backed by what looks like numbers as you can find videos.
Blaming the medium itself is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Videos yes, YouTube, NO.
It is not the nature of the media type, but the focus of the corporation that matters.
It is totally appropriate for videos on say, TED (which has it's own streaming service) to discuss climate change.
But a service known more for cat videos, with minimal to no fact checking, known to be used by national propaganda machines has no business being used for any fact based discussion.
Yes, there are good videos on Youtube, I love to watch them. But it is a totally inappropriate forum to d
Re: (Score:2)
Videos are a perfectly fine way of getting climate change information. The only question is the content of those videos. That is neither better nor worse than the content of any other medium.
Youtube is worse than text. In the first place, you have to watch it instead of reading through it, which is slow. In the second place, the quality of content is lower. You're not going to find anything like the IPCC report in a youtube video. And the IPCC report is only second-tier in quality.
The idea that youtube is as good as text for understanding climate change is nonsense. Both the medium and the quality of information currently provided in that medium are lower.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube videos can be a good way to deliver information. For example there is a channel called Mentour Pilot that covers aviation incidents. The guy is a pilot and an instructor himself.
Wikipedia has articles on all the events he covers, but they lack the detail and insight he provides, and most importantly lack the explanations he gives to help you see how things went wrong.
Much of the detail is available in the accident reports, but they are full of technical jargon and assume the reader has extensive kno
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hahaha, literally no one, including you, has broken out the spreadsheets and verified the climate models people will defend to the death around here.
How exactly would a spreadsheet help someone verify a climate model? I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Re:Problem (Score:5, Funny)
There's a 7.32% chance you know what you're talking about, according to the data in my spreadsheet.
Re: (Score:2)
What does your spreadsheet say?
Re: (Score:2)
How would you do it?
I wouldn't, I would use a real tool, not a spreadsheet.
Re: (Score:2)
Is 'a real tool' its actual name or are you just the perfect example of those people that want to sound high and mighty but actually know shit about fuck?
Seems to me if you knew one of those 'real tools' you'd have named it.
I am not gonna defend climate change deniers but it is a fact that we're living in a time when people with the same level of intelligence and lack of due diligence just go the other way and treat everything anyone wearing a labcoat says as gospel.
I am willing to bet money that the 'scien
Re: Problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather sift through some B.S. anti climate change videos than miss an important and well researched detail, maybe even an insightful one.
OK, so from reading your posted, I've determined at least one of the following is true
1) You are incapable of reading even the summary
2) You are incapable of watching youtube videos that are demonitized
3) You believe that people who have useful information to contribute to the discussion will simply sit on it because they aren't making money on youtube ("I CAN HELP SAVE THE PLANET!!!! eh, but what's in it for me?") and that nobody else will be willing to step in and do it for them for free.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the AI and workers at YouTube are highly unlikely to be able to tell the difference between factually correct and incorrect statements. While the scientific consensus is clearly in favor of AGW, there are still details worth arguing over, and a lot of those details could affect our decision making on what to spend our resources on. I'd rather sift through some B.S. anti climate change videos than miss an important and well researched detail, maybe even an insightful one. I don't need to be treated like a child and protected from illogical arguments. I'm capable of questioning the sources of an argument, and questioning the biases of the author.
There are no new announced causes for removal of videos by youtube, what's banned is the monetization of a rather narrow set of claims, reports on a claim and discussion of facts (even if false) will still be allowed to be monetized. The relevant quote:
prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.
When evaluating content against this new policy, we’ll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim. We will also continue to allow ads and monetization on other climate-related topics, including public debates on climate policy, the varying impacts of climate change, new research and more.
All your B.S. climate change videos will still be there, just sans the potential bias of youtube money.
Re: (Score:3)
So watch videos on Odysee instead. It's where all the heterodox thinkers are landing. YouTube is for cat videos and politicians now.
I wonder what YouTube will think of us pro-warming folks, though.
Science requires opposing views (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, joe user (or google) is not a scientist.
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people feel the need to make up these conspiracies?
If YouTube wanted to delete a channel they would just delete a channel. They don't need to go through the pretence of giving it strikes or warnings. They are also not shy about stating their political positions, e.g. on LGBTQ issues.
Maybe you see this sequence because the channels in question are run by reactionary idiots who post ever more extreme stuff until they get banned, as a form of martyrdom and an excuse to moved to banned.video.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's more profitable to be a climate change denier. Given the scientific consensus on the topic, there just isn't that much money to research it.
However, to deny it, there's a ton of money in that - there are many industries who will suffer horribly if they were forced to pay for pollution among other things, so there's a lot of money in that pot.
The e
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
After a point it was well proven by science that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Do you think that there still needs to be differing opinions saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer and that they are good for you (like the cigarette companies used to promote)? Or that having people telling others such things on a mass media platform, is good?
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the hysteria over the dangers of second-hand smoke? Unbelievable numbers thrown out there, with very dubious studies to back it up. I can't stand cigarette smoke, and would never willingly poison myself in such a manner. Yes, I'm glad I don't have to smell smoke indoors anymore. But I never could really believe the incredible damage that was claimed from only occasional inhalation from a distant cigarette.. It never passed the smell test, really. [slate.com]
Granted, YouTube is only going to take down the "bad" denier videos, right? Until they don't. And this always seems to happen [washingtonpost.com]. And sure, YouTube has the right to moderate content on their platform. I'm just saying that I don't believe they won't make an utter hash of the attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is a private company, we can criticise them when they screw up like this, but if we are relying on them to be a conduit for scientific discourse we have a much bigger problem.
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Interesting)
Occasional, sure. What about growing up in a house where both parents smoke a pack or more a day? What about working in a place where people smoked around you indoors all of the time? Yeah it sucked and I am glad those days are behind us.
Science requires objectivity. It does not not require opposing views.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still trying to decipher YouTube's tactic here. It's unclear.
No, it is not. It is wholly obvious. They don't want to be accused of censorship, the content still drives traffic to the site, thus having it there still improves ad revenue. They aren't saying they won't advertise on the content, only that they won't share ad revenue with the people who make it. But they don't want to incentivize lies, which is what monetizing anti-AGW videos is doing. That doesn't make them look good to anyone except total numpties who hate science.
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes to both questions.
Preface: I both accept and approve of the fact that YouTube and Google have every legal right to do whatever the hell they want to with their platforms. They have free speech too, it is their property and both of those facts mean that they get to decide what content they distribute and under what circumstances.
Do you think that there still needs to be differing opinions saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer and that they are good for you (like the cigarette companies used to promote)? Or that having people telling others such things on a mass media platform, is good?
To the extent that there are such positions, yes. Absolutely. Without question.
If there are opinions of the sort, I want to know about them. I want to be able to explore them fully. I want to know what the arguments are in favour and against.
Why?
Because limiting my access to knowledge in any way shape or form is asking me to take your word for it.
In order to exercise your rational faculties you need knowledge. Trying to limit someone's knowledge is trying to limit their ability to reason for themselves. Even if you are absolutely sure that you are right, it's still destructive in practice. At the very least you are limiting that person's ability to tell bullshit from fact by removing the number of examples of bullshit they will be exposed to, thus limiting their ability to perform comparisons and detect patterns.
If Big Tobacco is putting out bullshit and playing games with data, let me see it for myself. If you want to help me then explain exactly what tactics they're using so that when some other entity tries the same tactic in the future I'll be prepared for it. But if you try to draw my conclusions for me then the only conclusions I'll reach is a) you have something to hide b) I can't trust you and c) I don't like you because you are trying to control the contents of my mind and that makes you a bad person.
If you think that there are too many stupid people out there and they can't be trusted to reason for themselves, then consider the fact that you've just dehumanized them and thus are the last person who should be trusted to decide what is best for them.
And it might be climate change or cigarettes today. Tomorrow you could have your access to some relevant information restricted and you wouldn't even know it. That's the most egregious form of ignorance: not knowing what you don't know. And there's nothing you can do about it if your ability to discover information (fact or bullshit, doesn't matter) is blocked.
Reason is our primary tool for survival. In order to live and thrive as a human you need to be able to think and to take action according to your own rational judgement. By all means communicate information if you want to do good : "There is a lot of evidence that cigarettes cause cancer." But if you sequester information you are saying "Don't think I've done that for you" and that, in my opinion, is a moral wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If there are opinions of the sort, I want to know about them. I want to be able to explore them fully. I want to know what the arguments are in favour and against.
Then you came to the wrong place, because YouTube is not a good platform for that. YouTube only cares about engagement, so if you watch one video telling you smoking is actually good for you, it will auto-play another one straight after.
If YouTube actually presented it as "99.9% of experts agree that smoking is bad for you, and the 0.1% who don't are tobacco industry shills" then what you suggest might work. That's not what YouTube is though.
Worse still, when Google adjusts its search results to give that k
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
All information is of value. That was my point.
You're not going to get a scientific thesis from a YouTube video but it can be a great introductory source of any information.
Even the fact that conspiracy theorists actually exist is knowledge itself. If you kick them all off of the platform, then I'm forced to take other peoples' word for it that such content actually exists / existed and is a problem. You are thus doing me a disservice and trying to cut off my rational faculties by blocking me from being able to discover, explore and evaluate such information for myself. You have taken the position of doing my thinking for me and that is not acceptable.
It will also backfire on you one day when it is done to you. The idea that only "proper channels" should be used to disseminate certain information, such as academic journals or whatever, is kicking us back to the days of sages. It used to be the churches that made themselves the gate keepers of information. Science was allowed to flourish when the gate keepers were eliminated. You need to take the bad and the ugly with the good, or you will throw out the good.
Re: (Score:3)
They have free speech too, it is their property and both of those facts mean that they get to decide what content they distribute and under what circumstances.
It doesn't matter how we get to dystopian society - government censorship or private - the end result will be the same. Without practical ability to freely discuss ideas, and that includes ideas that you personally may find blasphemous, the rest of our enlightenment values collapse. Whatever comes next, one thing is clear - individuals will not have nearly as much personal freedoms and people in charge will not have nearly as much accountability. But sure, protecting rights of malevolent imaginary entities
Re: (Score:2)
After a point it was well proven by science that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Do you think that there still needs to be differing opinions saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer and that they are good for you (like the cigarette companies used to promote)? Or that having people telling others such things on a mass media platform, is good?
After a point it was well proven by science that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Do you think that there still needs to be differing opinions saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer and that they are good for you (like the cigarette companies used to promote)? Or that having people telling others such things on a mass media platform, is good?
ARE there swathes of people on mass media platforms claiming that cigarettes don't cause cancer and are good for you? Or has the weight of evidence ultimately prevailed?
In any case, yes, I do want differing opinions. Same as I will keep the all the points in my dataset, not just the ones clustered around the normal. If you remove the 'bad' values you risk distorting your understanding and having false confidence.
I would wager that you are reasoning circularly on what should be allowed - what you're familia
Re: (Score:2)
After a point it was well proven by science that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Do you think that there still needs to be differing opinions saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer and that they are good for you (like the cigarette companies used to promote)? Or that having people telling others such things on a mass media platform, is good?
This,
Science requires reasoned questions... not blindly opposing viewpoints.
It's like saying that if we make kids read both Karl Marx and Mein Kamf, they'll come out well rounded. In reality you're not teaching them to compare opposing viewpoints, you're giving them two extremes and asking them to pick which one they like.
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Informative)
Science doesn't require opposing views. It requires objectivity, or at least awareness of potential subjectivity. Curiosity will get you to challenge your views without a motive.
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is about publishing data so the results can be verified and confirmed by peers.
Your argument boils down to the sky is pink because you say it is.
Re:Science requires opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
or is is not science.
Here is your problem with the concept that there must always be an opposing view, and it has to have the same level of acceptance as the physics model..
We go nowhere.
If you demand that your view that oxygen is not needed or doesn't exist ( I'm using "your" a a hypothetical person, not your personal view) then we have to stop and answer it, then answer another person's wild denial and whatever they think is happening - or not happening.
We go nowhere.
The problem with demands to include anti-global warming postings with the same gravitas as the laws of physics is that it is either anti-science, obsolete physics, or shilling. I mean, I love the name "Phlogiston theory", but it's long obsolete. If people want to invoke it, they need to show why it is right, and the present model wrong.
Now here's how to get your agenda passed. Do something other than deny. Do something other than bring up long debunked anti GW "proofs".
Show the proofs that the easily proven and long used effect of radiative forcing somehow fails on the global level. Grade school students prove the physics are real in science fairs for years. Commercial greenhouses have used the physics for around a hundred years now, for growing plants in places they would not grow otherwise. Carbon dioxide enrichment works. That's why it is used.
So this is the thing - simple denial and complete disregard for settled physics doesn't cut the mustard. If the deniers are going to invalidate the physics, they have to use physics to do it.
Instead the tools demiaers use are to point out things that seem anomalous (most all been reconciled) use data that is obsolete, or even just calling names.
It isn't a debate thing. It isn't a one data point seems off, thus invalidating the entire physics thing. If you believe that you can falsify the physics involved - do it using physics.
Let's face it - you as the person who just proved that AGW does not exist will be getting a Nobel prize in physics because you will have just shown that we can pump as much CO2 and methane into the atmosphere as we want, and there will be a scientific proof of that.
Show the physics, do the learning, prove the hypothesis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with demands to include anti-global warming postings with the same gravitas as the laws of physics is that it is either anti-science, obsolete physics, or shilling.
First off, excellent post. Well reasoned. But, I think, flawed in this assertion.
We aren't demanding that. We're demanding that YouTube stop promoting itself as the arbiter of the truth and using financial coercion to further some corporate goal.
For years now the left has been adamant that companies like Facebook and YouTube have the right to carry or not carry content that they deem harmful or objectionable. But that's not what YouTube is doing here. It's doing something other than that.
YouTube isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want someone to explain, in a comprehensible way, why this is the correct action to take. Why is this better than deleting the videos?
I believe this sort of action is a tapdance of sorts. Youtube gets flak from advertisers, They don't really want to kick people if the postings are civil in nature. As an example, someone posting videos advocating violence against the libs is going to to get a quick strike, probably removed.
But civil postings, even if wrong or BS, are difficult to defend regarding removing altogether.
Something in your post made me laugh. The warning, "What you are about to watch is total Bullshit". Then after I stopped
Re: Science requires opposing views (Score:3)
"Show the physics, do the learning, prove the hypothesis."
As long as any dissent from climate change orthodoxy is cancelled, how would one "show" such a thing, pray tell?
Re: (Score:2)
"Show the physics, do the learning, prove the hypothesis."
As long as any dissent from climate change orthodoxy is cancelled, how would one "show" such a thing, pray tell?
Look at the research.
The idea that the research is an orthodoxy is wrong in the first place. The idea that the people at youtube are tools of the science cabal is pretty amusing.
The idea that youtube is the final arbiter of truth is laughable.
You or I can read the papers, and see the conclusions and the data leading up to those conclusions.
The stuff on Youtube has another purpose. There might be people out there trying to form an outlook on things like AGW, or flat Earth, or Moon landing, or Cov
Re: (Score:2)
" We go nowhere. "
That is exactly what many people want. They want nothing to change, because things are just fine -- for them.
Always a short sighted move. Because things always do change. In addition, that resistance to change gives rise to support from some odd corners.
We've seen in politics recently, that a lot of people who are not benefiting from the present times somehow voted in people who were the exact opposite of the group that might help them. My trips through the countryside where many live show that their lives are just 4 years more in advanced entropy.
They don't want to have to change, because that would allow outside ideas in. Possible dangerous ideas to their ideological order. They don't want change, because it could mean admitting to being wrong, or smaller or lesser somehow -- the monsters from the Id, come to slay the Ego.
Yep. It'a a strange thing. It's a very annoying thing. The concep
Re: (Score:3)
Science requires opposing views or is is not science
Actually, this is not true. Science largely depends on consensus. Contrarians who deny the consensus are usually ignored unless they can falsify the consensus. But usually a consensus is not falsified by a contrarian, it is falsified by one who believes in the consensus and is diligently conducting various experiments to confirm the many assumptions of the consensus conform with observable phenomena. This creates a crisis—a revolution—and new theories are posited. A new consensus forms that conf
Re: (Score:2)
1. Science is not carried out by publishing videos on YouTube. It's carried out by doing research and then publishing your results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This proposal will not impact that process.
Climate change deniers are free to do this: do research that shows our climate isn't changing, and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That would be an opposing view in the scientific sense.
Funnily enough, that's not happening. That means climate change deniers have no data to support
Nope. That is WRONG. (Score:4, Insightful)
Only science denier clamor for an "opposing view". And it reeks of the "balancing the view" of having opposed views.
Re: (Score:2)
Science requires objectivity. It does not not require opposing views. Opposing views for the sake of opposing views results in people believing what they want to believe over what is objectively true.
Leave scientific debate to the scientists qualified to debate on a given topic.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between presenting conflicting research results and gish gallopping over your opponent, hoping that you can carpet bomb him with more bullshit than he can reasonably debunk in the time he has.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, some kook claiming that smoking prevents lung disease is unhelpful.
Likewise people presenting the latest perpetual motion machine are not useful at an engineering conference except possibly as comic relief.
No surprise there (Score:2, Insightful)
Expect the usual one-sided enforcement.
Questioning how catastrophic climate change actually will be by analyzing the assumptions of various climate models, their relative likelihoods and shortcomings? Banned.
Claiming that Science! shows that only by voting for AOC for president can we Heal The Planet? Permitted and encouraged.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this not the free market at work?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. Eventually they'll piss off enough, and well off enough, people who will then be able to build alternative infrastructure profitably.
And the era of Google, et al. will eventually blow over. Nothing lasts forever. As irritating as this might be, it'll eventually get routed around.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitchute seems to be the go to for crackpots and morons these days.
Re: No surprise there (Score:2)
I can imagine you invading Baghdad in the 10th century and stumbling upon the House of Wisdom: every book that contradicts my doctrine is blasphemous and every book that affirms it is superfluous; burn them all!
Re: No surprise there (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you want an actual opinion, no that's not the free market at work. A free market contains many independent agents making independent self-interested choices and exchanging or withholding information voluntarily in the process.
A single authority controlling a large chunk of the flow of information between a large chunk of the participants is not that.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it will be "one-sided" enforcement -- what other "side" will enforce Google's policy on Google's website?
Banning grifting, not speech. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Questioning how catastrophic climate change actually will be by analyzing the assumptions of various climate models, their relative likelihoods and shortcomings? Banned.
Incorrect. It's not banned. You just can't use their platform to earn ad revenue. If your message is SOOO important, why not publish it for free? This doesn't stop you from expressing your bullshit, just grifting off the public using their platform. If your truth is so powerful, your followers will surely support you on patreon, right?
Claiming that Science! shows that only by voting for AOC for president can we Heal The Planet? Permitted and encouraged.
Citation, please? Exactly where is YouTube "encouraging" AOC for president and precisely when did she start running? This is more of your usual trademark bullshit. The
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. It's not banned. You just can't use their platform to earn ad revenue
Is that any better, though? I mean, if a person is using reason and actual science to ask questions about certain specific aspects of climate change, why lump them in with those people saying it is a hoax (ESPECIALLY if one can somehow discern the difference)? And why should we trust YT's algorithms, which have proven at times to be shoddy as fuck (IMO of course).
Re: (Score:2)
But will Google still make money? (Score:3)
Are they prohibiting advertisements entirely, or just cutting off the creator's revenue stream on climate change denial videos?
The latter seems a bit hypocritical, if you ask me.
The former seems like a cool way to make a video you want to be released for free and that Google won't put ads into.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost certainly the former: turns out google's customers--the people who pay them shit toms of money to run ads--don't want their ads displayed side by side with really dubious videos because Nestle, Unilever, etc don't want their brand associated with crackpots.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they prohibiting advertisements entirely, or just cutting off the creator's revenue stream on climate change denial videos?
Google doesn't show ads on demonetized videos. This is because demonetization is mostly for the benefit of the advertisers, who don't want to be associated with the content.
The former seems like a cool way to make a video you want to be released for free and that Google won't put ads into.
Sure, though keep in mind that Google is under no obligation to host your crap for free and if it becomes a nuisance, they won't. You are, of course, free to make whatever videos you like (subject to certain legal limitations) and host them yourself.
Remember when.. (Score:2, Troll)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Allowing corporations to be arbiters of truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Is way too much power in the hands of way too few. Past time to break up Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Is way too much power in the hands of way too few. Past time to break up Google.
Then we can have a Red Google and a Blue Google.
Each team can have their own echo chamber and peddle their own lies and misinformation to themselves.
Republicans still think Trump is President [google.com]
That always ends well. [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then we can have a Red Google and a Blue Google.
That's not going to happen because only one of those colors believes that silencing the opposition is a valid debate tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
If you cared that much then you certainly wouldn't be using google in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Is way too much power in the hands of way too few. Past time to break up Google.
Corporations are not arbitrating the truth. It's a big Internet out there. You can host your (legal) content on any site that will take it, or if none will take it you can host it yourself.
It won't make that much difference (Score:2)
Been quite a while the money youtube itself gives is just chump change.
There's a reason why everyone just do raid shadow legends segments now, or have patreon.
More accurate headline: (Score:4, Insightful)
Google and YouTube INCREASE their profit margins on unpopular messages
Think about it:
When these virtue signaling clowns PRETEND to be fighting "misinformation" by "de-monetizing" them, what they're ACTUALLY doing is simultaneously signalling to their idiot friends that they disapprove of those messages AND boosting their profits from them. They do not suddenly stop injecting ads into the disfavored videos - nobody goes to YouTube and watches the disfavored stuff ad-free. No, what Google/YouTube does it merrily run ads like always, but they keep 100% of the money, sharing none with the content creators.
This is not just cynical, it's hyper-cynical, and people need to stop being duped by all the faux virtue signalling by mega corporations.
Re:More accurate headline: (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually they do stop injecting ads on videos that are demonetized for reasons like being climate change or vaccine denialists. Unsurprisingly the brands that advertise on YouTube do not want to be associated with that kind of stuff.
Most of the demonetization that YouTube does is not for ideological reasons, it's because the advertisers don't want to be associated with that content.
Re: (Score:3)
They do not suddenly stop injecting ads into the disfavored videos - nobody goes to YouTube and watches the disfavored stuff ad-free.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Google does show ads on content uploaded by channels that haven't reached the bar for monetization, and for content uploaded by channels that have but opt not to monetize. But I have seen no evidence that videos demonetized by Google for reasons of content have ads shown on them at all, and it wouldn't really make any sense for Google to do that because the primary reason Google demonetizes them is to avoid pissing off advertisers who don't want their products next to the
Can we have a complete list of Official Beliefs? (Score:2)
Will we also be required to support only dinky renewables as carbon-free energy sources?
If Youtube is so PC (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do I keep getting static political ads accusing Biden of wanting to house illegal immigrants in our neighborhoods? (obviously from a pro Trump group)
Seriously, this pick and choose and moving the goalposts crap needs to stop. Google believes it has achieved God status, and now it needs to be knocked down a few pegs.
Common carrier, or a big clear list of the political narrative to be expected on a site.
The problem runs deeper (Score:2)
The problem here is not one of the videos. The problem is much larger than this.
Our society, and the people therein, is not capable of actually differentiating between information and propaganda. Because we never learned to differentiate. We were never taught the ability to critically dissect information we are given and test its veracity. Part of this is due to how our school system works. There are even teachers who will reprimand their students if they correct them, despite the student actually being rig
You Can Only Have An Approved Opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have to agree with content posted by YouTubers, but I respect their right to believe in whatever they want to believe.
Interesting (Score:2)
This change is being pushed by the advertisers and publishers, because they're afraid of sponsoring climate-change-denial.
Maybe we can get some petitions going to push them to remove their ads from anti-vax content, racist content, etc? Maybe gather some money to put some ads out in some papers, push the idea that we don't want ads that promote actively harmful or fallacious messaging.
Glad I'm not a YouTuber (Score:2)
Google owns the platform and I suppose it is their right to set the rules of engagement. But I feel bad for people that have invested a lot of time and effort into building YouTube channels and who rely on the income to support their families. These sorts of politically motivated rules have drawn them into debates that many of them would prefer not to engage in.
Free speech is gone on these platforms. Either you toe the company line or you are silenced.
Re: Heeeeeeeere comes the "But our freedom of spee (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One side has money backing it without ads. The other side could use the support.
Re: Heeeeeeeere comes the "But our freedom of spee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While I wouldn't use the word "toxic" I completely agree with you. Perhaps some of the exchanges are toxic depending on the emotional investment in the exchange by the parties involved in the exchange. I feel as though the entire topic is "conflicted" or "contested" and YouTube should avoid monetizing topics of truly scientific debate that produce heated discussions.
While I agree climate change is something we should be concerned about we also need to be open to civil, researched, and scientific discourse
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Heeeeeeeere comes the "But our freedom of spe (Score:2)
Re: Heeeeeeeere comes the "But our freedom of s (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Heeeeeeeere comes the "But our freedom of s (Score:2)
Re: Heeeeeeeere comes the "But our freedom of s (Score:2)
Re: Heeeeeeeere comes the "But our freedom of spee (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
RationalWiki is a living contradiction (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>Is that page trying to say that Fox News isn't mainstream media?
No, I read it as saying Stossel jumped from "mainstream" media to Fox news, and the quotes could mean it was Stossel who used the term mainstream to say that, or if those are air quotes it probably means he moved from the so called mainstream media to Fox news.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm increasingly glad that that I dropped social media at the beginning of this year. Enjoy your lefty echo chamber, Twitterati!
Re:Heeeeeeeere comes the "But our freedom of speec (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That is how propaganda works, you find some true elements, then ignore all the other true elements, and create a narrative that is opposite to the actual fact.
Lets show all the days of the year which we got a record cold, or below average. Ignore all the days that are record highs, also ignore all the days that that are above average. Lets not compare the number of above average days and by the amount is higher than the cold days.
We have seen this with Lead in products, We have seen this with Smoking, We
Re: (Score:2)
"Why not de-list in the search engine too?"
Excellent idea.
In fact, they should just block all videos that don't have verifiable facts to back them up, no need to stop at climate change.
Re:Why not de-list in the search engine too? (Score:5, Insightful)
In ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have read your newsletter and I must say it really struck home for me.
I would like to hire you to do my thinking for me, since the Big Bad World of Ideas gives me indigestion.
Please add me to your mailing list.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mcnster
Pretty severe reaction to publishing for free (Score:2)
You statists will be the first ones shot by the very authoritarians you promote. Useful idiots have no use after the revolution. You're dead weight.
You're bringing gunfire into a discussion about monetization? That escalated pretty quickly. I didn't realize some jackoff having to publish misinformation videos for free was life or death. Since when did YouTube become so existential? It sure is a shame they're the ONLY way for a climate change denier to make money.
You want to stand up to this abject tyranny? Try making a sacrifice of your own...publish your truth!!...and don't get paid. I bet you go around saying "freedom isn't free" all the ti
That's one huge sense of entitlement (Score:2)
But is my video hate and denial? Why does Youtube get to decide what the truth is? I mean, they're fine with carrying it. They're fine with people viewing it. Their fine with me giving a link to anybody I want. But they aren't fine with it making money.
I guess that's kind of like making a video praising Hitler and his ideology and only being allowed to air it on PBS for free. It's still out there right? Someone just doesn't get paid for their labor. That really sounds like coercion to me. Youtube isn't denying the videos a home.. It's only denying them money. Hrm....
First of all, you're not Galileo. Sorry, you're a dude with an opinion, not a professional scientist. Its disingenuous to compare yourself. That's like me comparing myself to Michael Jordan because I played hoops with my 8yo yesterday. One is a professional, one is some dude fucking around in his free time. Let's lower the stakes here. I am no longer a professional scientist and I assume you're not currently one either. We're two slashdotters with opinions.
Also, I can't stop you from disliking th
Re: (Score:2)
It might be climate change or cigarettes today. Tomorrow you could have your access to some relevant information restricted and you wouldn't even know it. That's the most egregious form of ignorance: not knowing what you don't know.
Seriously, this pick and choose and moving the goalposts crap needs to stop. Google believes it has achieved God status, and now it needs to be knocked down a few pegs.
Something like this has already been posted by (your?) account: https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org] I encourage you to talk to someone and to take care. Wish you all the best.