User Controls
Count Dankula demonetized
-
2019-01-19 at 9:44 PM UTCYoutuners now advertize their paypal links and bitcoin addresses.
-
2019-01-19 at 9:47 PM UTCnever her of him and i couldn't care less if anyone was demonetized on youtube.
-
2019-01-19 at 9:47 PM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 12:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Google isn't obligated to advertise on every video. Being part of the AdSense program isn't some god given right. Essentially, google is the advertiser here.
They aren't legally obligated to, sure, no one contests this. But in advertising on some but not others based on content they privilege some forms of speech over others, and they hold a near monopoly on content distribution. It does sort of seem like gatekeepers of communication infrastructure have some kind of responsibility to be impartial.
Originally posted by HTS Like: this is what it looks like when the free market decides. Do you want the government to intervene and tell businesses what to do, you commie?
Yes please -
2019-01-20 at 2:27 AM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 2:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny They aren't legally obligated to, sure, no one contests this. But in advertising on some but not others based on content they privilege some forms of speech over others, and they hold a near monopoly on content distribution. It does sort of seem like gatekeepers of communication infrastructure have some kind of responsibility to be impartial.
Yes please
you dont have to be a complete retard to know that no businesses would like to be associated with 'deviant' and 'heretic' individuals or entities, much less advertize on their channels for shits like 'not alligned with our core values'.
thats just asking for product boycott and backlashes from sjws and google has a duty to protect their advitizers revenue and image. -
2019-01-20 at 2:45 AM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 2:46 AM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 3:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny you dont have to be a complete retard to know that no businesses would like to be associated with 'deviant' and 'heretic' individuals or entities, much less advertize on their channels for shits like 'not alligned with our core values'.
Businesses shouldn't exist, the means of production should be held in trust for the workers by the state.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-01-20 at 3:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Businesses shouldn't exist, the means of production should be held in trust for the workers by the state.
I might be too drunk to be getting into a lengthy debate at this point in time, BUT... I find myself partially agreeing with what you say, but also, in some way, maybe just instinctively/knee-jerkily, disagreeing...
Ok, what exactly are the "means of production"? I mean, where does entrepreneurial risk come into play? That's the one element of capitalism that I have a hard time dismissing... There's a reason the CEO gets paid millions of dollars a year... It's because he (or she) has to make decisions that carry incredible risk, whereas those at the bottom of the totem pole (myself included) are not liable for the outcomes of such decisions.
Maybe I just haven't thought it all through far enough, but, being on the fence with regards to the economic political spectrum, I find myself ever-so-slightly drawn more towards capitalism than socialism, BUT ONLY SLIGHTLY. I definitely see the merits of moderate socialism (unions, health care, welfare, etc).
But I remain on the fence. -
2019-01-20 at 4:52 AM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 4:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by GGG Uh, why? Just because they created the public forum? If YouTube was a physical location (somehow) this would be illegal as fuck
If YouTube was a physical location, this would still be totally legal though. They're allowed to kick people off their property (as long as it isn't motivated by discrimination against a protected group) and they're allowed to deny their services to people. -
2019-01-20 at 4:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Madman The fact that they left the videos up but demonetized them says it all. Sure the money was conditional but they actually need to provide what rules he broke and WHY they demonetized him, which they didn't do. This just means youtube can fuck anyone at anytime and not provide a reason. The fact that they still let him provide them with content that half a million people subscribe to, so they can make money off him, but he can't make money off his own content, it really has nothing to do with free speech because they aren't censoring him, and thats hypocritical.
Who gives a fuck? He still has all of his content, he's just not allowed to use YouTube's monetisation infrastructure. They are literally deciding to nix their own earnings through him to end their business relations with him, and still allowing him to use all their shit for free.
Their platform, their infrastructure, their algorithms, their advertiser relations, their brand: Their. Fucking. Rules.
Don't like it, go upload to Rightie YouTube... Oh wait, that doesn't exist because you are inbred retards who can't produce shit. -
2019-01-20 at 4:59 AM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 5:07 AM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 5:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by Goy Division Don't like it, go upload to Rightie YouTube… Oh wait, that doesn't exist because you are inbred retards who can't produce shit.
They've tried; every time they get hamstrung by banks stopping them from receiving payments and donations. The only real option for funding 'politically incorrect' enterprises is cryptocurrencies, which is difficult for a number of reasonsThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-01-20 at 5:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra They've tried; every time they get hamstrung by banks stopping them from receiving payments and donations. The only real option for funding 'politically incorrect' enterprises is cryptocurrencies, which is difficult for a number of reasons
"Well well well if it isn't the consequences of our own actions" -
2019-01-20 at 6:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by GGG Yeah, I don't disagree with you, retard. They should be treated more like a traditional publisher if they're going to do that shit. I'm just saying that it's still free speech, so people complaining that it isn't are just being dramatic. It is the truth that this is an expression of youtube's free speech. If youtube were to have less censoring power, it would be a reduction in their freedom of speech, which I am not saying is a bad thing.
It's funny though, because I bet those people wouldn't be upset if he was actually racist and uploading racist propaganda, which would be free speech as well as long as he isn't inciting violence.
However this guy lived in the UK where there is no freedom of speech. So he got arrested and had to pay a fine of 800 monopoly dollars. Then thanks to freedom of speech in America, Youtube demonetized him.
If people want freedom of speech, this is what it looks like.
The thing is, they and the payment processors like Patreon don't apply any of their rules equally. It's painfully evident that the actions they take are in service of a political agenda. And that's seriously dangerous. Some dude who obviously isn't a Nazi, teaching his dog to raise its paw- should never have resulted in any of the shitstorm of consequences that he got hit with. I think it really just underlined how far apart the gulf is between Gen X-ers/boomers, etc- and those of us who grew up with open internet. -
2019-01-20 at 6:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Ok, what exactly are the "means of production"?
The means of production are everything that you need for economic productivity except for labor. Things like machines, tools, distribution chains.I mean, where does entrepreneurial risk come into play? That's the one element of capitalism that I have a hard time dismissing… There's a reason the CEO gets paid millions of dollars a year… It's because he (or she) has to make decisions that carry incredible risk, whereas those at the bottom of the totem pole (myself included) are not liable for the outcomes of such decisions.
Why do we need to load the risk of venture on to an executive board at all? The most effective structures we see in capitalism actually work to defuse risk from individuals. Institutions like venture capital, incorporation, and bankruptcy all actually work to move risk off of individuals and diffuse it to groups of individuals or lending institutions. This is ultimately the way command economies work, in so far a venture is necessary (and it does seem like there are distinct classes in "novel venture" and "filling a well understood market demand") then the state, representing the society as a whole, will bare that risk and distribute redistribute the reward. One thing that capitalism proves out is that it's not too hard, given a sufficient tolerance to risk and enough time, that generating profit is pretty straight forward. Instead of alienating society from the profit that's made my taking and hedging risks, why not offer the profits made on systematic risk taking and mitigation back to society instead of assigning it to elites who have the resources necessary to engage in that kind of pseudo-economic activity/ -
2019-01-20 at 6:57 AM UTCSurely this has nothing to do with the "victim's" other actions
