Licenses for live TV are very expensive. There's a reason Netflix doesn't get stuff for months/years after they're broadcast normally.Parasondox said:Sidenote: Is it true Hulu has ads? So you pay for a monthly service and you have advertisement during programming? Have it before and after, thats fine. Not during.
Well, that's tough shit, man. The CDC doesn't complain about stuff like that. (Not sure your analogy's accurate, anyway.) You can gripe and grumble and say whatever you like, but until the system properly works, it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it fucks everything up. And when THAT happens, it's your fault. SO! Right back where we started. Youtube isn't funded properly, isn't manned properly, and does not have the expertise to do its job. You don't like that its job is hard? Too bad. It's still their job.MatParker116 said:Because it's the equivalent of trying to check every drop of water for disease, five billion minutes of video are uploaded every hour trying to check them all manually is next to impossible.FalloutJack said:What he said DID make sense, of course Youtube will never have the manpower or the competence to do the job themselves either. For some reason, Google somehow can't afford quality workmanship.Silentpony said:Yeah but Jim didn't say much new. Just his usual righteous indignation and bark-bark speeches. Haven't seen TB's video, but I can guess its a slightly better phrased and researched version of JimmyBoy's vid.FalloutJack said:The OP should also note that Jim Sterling has made a video, and I think TotalBiscuit has, as well. So, Great Britain speaks, I guess.
Felt kinda stilted and obvious. I mean duh, music videos are basically softcore porn these days.RaikuFA said:So Caddy just posted this last night.
Was just something that made me laugh.
At least rap music videos are softcorn porn. And yeah it felt forced but at least there were a few good jokes in there.Silentpony said:Felt kinda stilted and obvious. I mean duh, music videos are basically softcore porn these days.RaikuFA said:So Caddy just posted this last night.
Was just something that made me laugh.
And obviously someone like Manaj and her music label is going to be more important to YouTube than a bunch of lets players, and thus their appeals are going to be expedited.
Companies exist to make money, it not fiscally feasible to hire the amount of people that would be required to check every video title and tag for advertiser friendly content. AI is unfortunately not yet advanced enough to do it either, it's not a perfect system but it's the best we are going to get in the near future.FalloutJack said:Well, that's tough shit, man. The CDC doesn't complain about stuff like that. (Not sure your analogy's accurate, anyway.) You can gripe and grumble and say whatever you like, but until the system properly works, it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it fucks everything up. And when THAT happens, it's your fault. SO! Right back where we started. Youtube isn't funded properly, isn't manned properly, and does not have the expertise to do its job. You don't like that its job is hard? Too bad. It's still their job.MatParker116 said:Because it's the equivalent of trying to check every drop of water for disease, five billion minutes of video are uploaded every hour trying to check them all manually is next to impossible.FalloutJack said:What he said DID make sense, of course Youtube will never have the manpower or the competence to do the job themselves either. For some reason, Google somehow can't afford quality workmanship.Silentpony said:Yeah but Jim didn't say much new. Just his usual righteous indignation and bark-bark speeches. Haven't seen TB's video, but I can guess its a slightly better phrased and researched version of JimmyBoy's vid.FalloutJack said:The OP should also note that Jim Sterling has made a video, and I think TotalBiscuit has, as well. So, Great Britain speaks, I guess.
Let me put it in plain business terms. A business asked them to do a thing. They said "Sure!" and then proceeded to not be able to do it properly, causing them no end of problems. This is not operating. It is not doing. So, right back to where we started. Youtube is not funded, manned, or skilled enough to do its job. You can go around the Merry-Go-Round as much as you like, but they are not capable, period.MatParker116 said:Snip
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
That's what I said.Snails said:Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.RaikuFA said:That's what I said.Snails said:Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.Snails said:Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.RaikuFA said:That's what I said.Snails said:Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Oh my bad. While I personally don't see a reason a reason to call them out for having ads pulled in one place but leaving them in another, I feel like it's their choice to me. I could see how people would want to.RaikuFA said:I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.Snails said:Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.RaikuFA said:That's what I said.Snails said:Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Because hypocrisy.Snails said:Oh my bad. While I personally don't see a reason a reason to call them out for having ads pulled in one place but leaving them in another, I feel like it's their choice to me. I could see how people would want to.RaikuFA said:I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.Snails said:Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.RaikuFA said:That's what I said.Snails said:Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Well, this does part;y seem like YouTube doesn't have a good ad targeting system and instead is locking Ads/Monetization out to a basic safe "E for Everyone" zone. While some advertisers obviously don't want their ads played amidst content consisting of a stream of profanities, or talking about mass deaths ("2000 people are dead! Lets go to MCDonalds for ice cream!"), there's certainly many, if not an outright majority that would just take the extra demographic slice.Snails said:Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.RaikuFA said:That's what I said.Snails said:Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
It's true that while someone like Angry Joe may have not done anything to be any worse than south park, it's still the advertisers choice where their ads go. Advertising has never been a fair, equality focused thing. Just because they run an ad in one place doesn't mean that they HAVE to run an ad in another. The advertisers are paying, not the advertisee, it's their decision to make. I'm not denying the hypocrisy in it though, just so your aware. I just don't see a reason to call anyone out.FalloutJack said:Because hypocrisy.Snails said:Oh my bad. While I personally don't see a reason a reason to call them out for having ads pulled in one place but leaving them in another, I feel like it's their choice to me. I could see how people would want to.RaikuFA said:I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.Snails said:Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.RaikuFA said:That's what I said.Snails said:Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
"Oh, that Angry Joe is hardly the sort of thing we want to associate our fine product with. We'll just keep it on rap videos and South Park, instead."
Hypocrites. If you can put it on South Park, you can put it anywhere. And so, they're dicks. We knew this, of course, but this is evidence of unfair treatment. Nothing Angry Joe has ever done has made him more offensive than the other two venues, hence the calling out.
The hypocrisy IS the reason, though, because if the cited reason is that 'We don't want to associate this with that', then it's either a lie or they're being stupid. And without the stupid lie, there IS no reason to do that.Snails said:It's true that while someone like Angry Joe may have not done anything to be any worse than south park, it's still the advertisers choice where their ads go. Advertising has never been a fair, equality focused thing. Just because they run an ad in one place doesn't mean that they HAVE to run an ad in another. The advertisers are paying, not the advertisee, it's their decision to make. I'm not denying the hypocrisy in it though, just so your aware. I just don't see a reason to call anyone out.FalloutJack said:Because hypocrisy.Snails said:Oh my bad. While I personally don't see a reason a reason to call them out for having ads pulled in one place but leaving them in another, I feel like it's their choice to me. I could see how people would want to.RaikuFA said:I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.Snails said:Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.RaikuFA said:That's what I said.Snails said:Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.RaikuFA said:Dragonbums said:In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.
This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.
Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.
Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.
St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.
If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
"Oh, that Angry Joe is hardly the sort of thing we want to associate our fine product with. We'll just keep it on rap videos and South Park, instead."
Hypocrites. If you can put it on South Park, you can put it anywhere. And so, they're dicks. We knew this, of course, but this is evidence of unfair treatment. Nothing Angry Joe has ever done has made him more offensive than the other two venues, hence the calling out.