Binro the Heretic So...they're not actually taking videos or channels down, they're just blocking ad revenue for videos with content they deem "unacceptable" to advertisers?
Are they still running ads on these videos? If so, that's a pretty shitty and outright evil thing to do.
John Holmes Motherfucker I'm giving this five stars because I think this is an important topic, and I don't want it to dissapear, but, NO, NO, NO, "censorship" does not mean that you don't get paid.
Phillip DeFranco is a decent guy with a family, and his shitty content is way way better than most people's shitty content, but it's still basically a guy commenting on what he could find on Google News this morning. In retrospect, nobody should have expected to make a living at that forever.
The essential thing about YouTube is still that you can upload practically anything, and it can be seen practically anywhere. There's always going to be rough, quirky, crazy, independent content, even if the logarithm and the monetary structure no longer care about them. Sites like POE TV are going to be more important in the future, as creators and fans of independent content are going to have to work harder at finding each other.
SolRo I have no pity for youtube 'stars' that just do commentary on crap they see on the news or livestream themselves playing games, or anything that basically takes no effort, significant time or money to do.
I am worried about the educational/edutainment creators getting hit because maybe global warming is too sensitive a topic for Exxon Mobile/BP or equality isn't a family friendly topic for Chick-fil-e. Basically any place where a handful of conservative corporations can use their financial influence to hurt these people's livelihoods.
Couldn't care less for HeyYoutube McYoloTrollol's of the internet.
Gmork Pretty much. My schadenfreude at watching viewwhores get shut down is not overshadowing my worry that the few truly exceptional independent channels that provide quality content will also get shut down.
Oh well. Maybe it's time for youtube to die and something else to take it's place. Hey, maybe we'll even get a few years before it turns into shit this time.
EvilHomer Youtube's been shit ever since Google took over. I agree with Gmork; hopefully Standard Oil 3.0 alienates enough of its content-producers that a viable alternative will be sought.
EvilHomer Aren't you? I thought you admitted to that?
Gmork Nope, in fact every time the ridiculous idea has been brought up I corrected it. Which you already knew, being a contrarian shitlord.
EvilHomer I don't understand. What is a "contrarian shitlord"? Wouldn't a _contrarian_ shitlord wind up being, by definition, just a regular, non-shitlord person?
I can't tell if you are trying to insult me, or be nice, but I hope it's the latter, and I will say "thank you" now just in case.
Gmork Contrarian is what you do - shitlord is what you are. Contrarian is not describing how you're being a shitlord - it's part of _why_ you're one.
English is hard.
StanleyPain I posted one of this douchebag's videos here YEARS ago before he was even a thing, and everyone one-starred it (apparently misunderstanding the point of POE). Most of his REALLY old videos from pre-success are gone because I guess he didn't want people seeing what a fucktard he was and how he got where he is: making dumb Ray Johnny Johnson (or whatever) rip-off videos and generally insulting people until he realized that being more politically correct got him more fans.
All this YT drama reminds of when they got rid of the video reply system in order to greatly reduce "YT reply girls" from getting their tits out in the 30 second video and making the same kind of ad revenue as actual content creators. Excuse me..."content" "creators."
Gmork Don't worry, I'm pretty sure the one-star was the same kind of knee-jerk thumbs-down reaction he gets from our kind on youtube. I wouldn't take it personally.
Cube You aren't given money for making bullshit videos nobody cares about anymore?
Is there any hope left for our civilization?
chumbucket YT cash mongers have been complaining about everything YT does to make that business less of a cash grab and a more streamlined fair process. I recall that last one over the stripping of "phony" subscribers got all their panties in a wad. If TV has to meet extremely stringent standards of content to earn ad dollars, I don't see why these guys can't be doing something closer to that if they intend to make real money off it.
Monkey Napoleon Ad revenue is magic money that comes from nowhere that I deserve if I expend any effort at all.
memedumpster I honestly did not think this would be a trigger video and only found it interesting that in a society where you literally die without money megacorps are pulling chains over what is a valid way to survive.
Personally, I think a lot of you are too trained to be slaves of others for these survival tokens and your wrath against this person is on your masters' behalf and not your own. If you work for another human and your labor produces more wealth for them than yourself, you don't have an honest job, you're a flesh algorithm.
Just because I might think people who work for a living don't make enough money doesn't mean I'm in favor of making money any way you can, and it doesn't mean I won't have a bad reaction to a talentless hack whining about not making six figures for fucking nothing.
John Holmes Motherfucker The YouTube business model has encouraged some bad behavior in the past. Just a few months ago, if you'd shown an interest in feminism, all kind of hateful crap would show up in your feed. By attracting the most attention, the most strident and enraging voices would get the most hits,. and the logarithm decided that meant it was the most popular. Therefore the bigger a prick you were on youtube, the more revenue you got. That had to stop. It was turning the whole world shitty.
I think its unfortunate that the rather benign content of Philip DeFranco is getting caught in the necessarily wide net, but Phil ought to be able to cope. If they don't want you to say "beautiful bastards", just say something else. Say something fresh and inventive. I know you can do it.
Expect the Ghostbusters debacle to have an impact. You KNOW the social media business is going to scramble to respond to the suggestion, true or not, that social media played a role in bringing down someone's 150 million dollar investment. That is NOT the kind of image they want to project to advertisers, no, not at all!
Pillager I just think it's a shame that YT's dumbing itself down til there's only let's plays & make up tutorials.
Lastly, Ghostbusters was an unneeded remake that wasn't funny. 'Don't court negative publicity' is the lesson I'd draw from that debacle.
Spit Spingola Sort of makes me think about how a bunch of advertisers stopped advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show after he made a bunch of misogynistic comments about Sandra Fluke. There's no real mechanism for advertisers to control what their ads are associated with on youtube, though.
It's pretty dumb that making an all-female Ghostbusters movie is "courting negative publicity". It's totally on-brand for Ghostbusters as a property, which made a crappy inclusive "Extreme" animated version where one of them is in a wheelchair that for some reason doesn't have the same negative reaction on youtube. It was really weird watching it because they threw in references to a negative youtube backlash that hadn't happened yet, and it was way worse in real life than in the movie.
John Holmes Motherfucker >>>Lastly, Ghostbusters was an unneeded remake that wasn't funny. 'Don't court negative publicity' is the lesson I'd draw from that debacle.
Good point. So how's the weather up your own ass?
>>>I just think it's a shame that YT's dumbing itself down til there's only let's plays & make up tutorials.
No really, I'm curious. Isn't it really humid?
EvilHomer Yeah, courting negative publicity was the only thing Ghostbusters did even remotely right.
It wasn't enough to save the film, especially since the estimated 0 million the marketing team spent on generating that negative publicity (more than the film's production costs itself) drove the break-even point so high that it is now unlikely to recoup its loses, BUT STILL. At least their decision to court negative publicity gave a few lonely old men a sense of identity and purpose - and what nobler goal could art ever ask of itself?
We've already had this discussion, Homer. Now we're talking about something else. Really, try and focus, don't you think that social media is going to respond to the prospect of shitty content providers carrying out hate campaigns against huge corporate advertisers? Does that seem far-fetched?
Really, I'm not saying that's what happened, what actually sunk Ghostbusters is irrelevant. I actually think Sony is to blame for spending a ridiculous amount of money trying to turn a decent comedy into a huge blockbuster. Also, that first trailer was pretty bad. Even Paul Feig didn't like it.
But here's the question: Do you think Google wants to explain to Sony, (or to any other huge media corporation) how it's paying Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist to undermine Sony's massive corporate investment?
EvilHomer What sunk Ghostbusters was the fact that it was a bad film, from a cheap studio, that nobody wanted to see in the first place.
What I want to know is how Google is going to explain to Thunderfoot (or any other huge content creator) how it's taking corporate payments from Sony to undermine Thunderfoot's massive labour investment?
John Holmes Motherfucker >>What sunk Ghostbusters was the fact that it was a bad film, from a cheap studio, that nobody wanted to see in the first place.
That's what I hear.
Cena_mark Folks keep claim that nobody cared about Ghostbusters yet the film was the greatest trigger for MRA butthurt for over a year. EVERYBODY CARED! If they didn't care the film would have been ignored like a fart in the wind like so many other halfhearted remakes like Robo Cop. The film was a battle ground for our culture war. SJWs vs MRAs. The Alt Right vs Feminism. It was more than a movie. It embodied America like nothing else.
You're right, except that it was just a movie. It was Ghostbusters with women in it, and that's all that it was. Which was sort of the genius of it. There was no special feminist message, except that women are people. Which is actually pretty feminist.
Two Weeks ago, Time magazine's cover story was "WHY THE CULTURE OF HATE IS DRIVING THE INTERNET." The internet is where the battleground is. Social media companies have the right and the ability to step in and take control. They don't want to, because it's going to be messy and expensive, but they'll do it when it becomes bad for business. It's not hard to imagine that Ghostbusters was the crossing of one line, but there are others. On the internet, harassment is a penalty women pay for attracting attention to themselves. It doesn't matter what kind of attention. They'll harass women for being attractive and for being unattractive. Women are the only minority who are actually a majority, and eventually letting it go on will be seen as bad for business. This isn't the wild west anymore, it isn't a frontier. It's where we all live and work, and socialize.
Eventually, they will clamp down, and they should. There is no right to express ourselves to strangers with death threats, even if its "all in fun". We're all pretty much used to the fact that we can't wave our dicks around in the grocery section at walmart. No one feels that they're being oppressed because they can't masturbate in the checkout line. You're going to be surprised, you won't even miss the death threats.
In the end, we're going to get as much freedom as we can handle, so handling your freedom responsibly is the best thing you can do.
And now, for a rebuttal from Evil Homer...
baleen What's going to happen is that there won't be an actual internet, anymore, JHM. Creating this brave new world is part of my job presently.
This is what I predict: In 5 years, there will be the internet as we remembered it, the wild west where you can say whatever the fuck you want, and there will be the internet of apps.
You are correct that the big companies are racing to quarantine trolls. They're getting really good at it. Microsoft Tay was really just a data mining experiment (trolls think they won, they didn't).
What will the real internet look like with all the people who just want to promote their careers and be safe no longer on it? I really don't know. I imagine a gigantic fucked up AOL. Who gives a shit, if that's what they want they can have it. Time Magazine can go fuck itself. There's a billion people on the internet and a few thousand lives get ruined every year all over the world, making it the safest city that ever existed.
Long time harassed and ridiculed game developer Derek Smart has opinions about stuff.
Pillager 'Good point. So how's the weather up your own ass?'
'No really, I'm curious. Isn't it really humid?'
Wow. You're ten+ years older than me & this is the best you can do?
People who are to the right of Che Guevara still deserve to be heard.
Lastly, Ghostbusters 2016 was as funny as an Adam Sandler movie. If a group of woman want to work hard & create/star in a funny *Original* new franchise then I'm totally cool with that. I'll pay good money for decent material. I just don't see it yet.
EvilHomer So, in other words John, because audiences didn't like Ghostbusters, you are now hoping that the authorities will turn our internet into a curated corporate plantation.
Well, like baleen says, one way or another you are probably going to get your wish, as that very plan has always been behind the establishment's demonization of the internet. The only reason it hasn't happened *yet* is because the state, and our tech oligarchs, each favour different schemes for centrally-controlling what information can and cannot appear within online discourse. But my God, could you pick a pettier and stupider issue to radicalize you into begging the King to take away your printing press?
Just do me a favor: when Republicans take over the White House, and they quite sensibly decide that "feminists" and "old man Boxxy fans" are the REAL trolls whom our collective corporatist-hivemind must righteously clamp down upon, the last ever posting you make before your Access ID gets revoked, should be an apology to the world, for not standing up in the name of liberalism and freedom of thought when you still had the chance.
EvilHomer But no, the truly important thing to focus on here, is that the link between Ghostbusters and all these other boogiemen running around in your mind really only exists there: in your mind.
Ghostbusters was a bland, forgettable comedy film, made by a company who specializes in bland, forgettable comedy films.
That's it. I know you wish it were more, but it's not, it's really not, and I'm starting to become legitimately concerned over this fixation you have about Ghostbusters and the Grand Ghostbusters Narrative you've fabricated in your head. You remind me of a couple elderly patients I work with, only you replace "Mexicans" with "Thunderfoot" and "immigration" with "unmoderated internet comments". This kind of paranoid behavior is fine to a point, but when it starts taking over and adversely affecting your quality of life, then I think something needs to be done.
Is there anything I can do to help?
John Holmes Motherfucker >>>But no, the truly important thing to focus on here, is that the link between Ghostbusters and all these other boogiemen running around in your mind really only exists there: in your mind.
According to a whole lot of people who aren't me, Google IS clamping down to make their content "advertiser-friendly" . And here's an example of content creators producing distinctly "advertiser-unfriendly" content in an major way that is without precedent and got national media attention. How much of a paranoid schizophrenic does one have to be to suppose that it got the attention of the people who run YouTube? I'm not claiming it explains everything I could be wrong, but it's a pretty sound hypothesis, not don't try to gaslight me Homer, that shit won't fly.
>>>What will the real internet look like with all the people who just want to promote their careers and be safe no longer on it? I really don't know. I imagine a gigantic fucked up AOL. Who gives a shit, if that's what they want they can have it. Time Magazine can go fuck itself. There's a billion people on the internet and a few thousand lives get ruined every year all over the world, making it the safest city that ever existed.
Okay, you just pulled that "few thousand" figure out of your ass, didn't you?
Why should the internet be the same all over? Why should Twitter have the same rules as 8-chan? The right of publishers to determine their own editorial policy is called Freedom of the press, and it's in the first amendment. Twitter's right to ban you is constitutionally protected, your right to post on Twitter isn't. If everybody sets their own editorial policy there will be safe spaces and wild spaces, spaces for everybody. What's happening now is tyranny.
>>People who are to the right of Che Guevara still deserve to be heard.
??? I am, well toithe right of Che Guavera.
>>Wow. You're ten+ years older than me & this is the best you can do?
I'm sorry if I lost my patience, but here's what you posted:
>>>I just think it's a shame that YT's dumbing itself down til there's only let's plays & make up tutorials.
That's not remotely happening. Demonitization of the same badly researched video posted over and over from every antifeminist ytou tuber about false rape accusations isn't going to lower the intellectual caliber of you tube all that miuch.
>>>Lastly, Ghostbusters was an unneeded remake that wasn't funny. 'Don't court negative publicity' is the lesson I'd draw from that debacle.
Not only does this not address what I said: "the suggestion, true or not", that social media played a role, but it's subjective, (YES IT IS FUNNY, SO FUCK YOU) devestatingly generic ("an unneeded remake that wasn't funny" has essentially been repeated over and over and over. ) , and "courting negative publicity" sounds a lot like the whiny bullshit you hear from these manbabies who, after trolling for months, start to get upset because "MELISSA MCARTHY IS TWEETING MEAN things about us." It strikes me as pretty dumb, and again, an easy generic reply to something that I wasn't saying. "How's the weather up your own ass" isn't the best I can do, but I don't think my best is really called for.
I gotta go. Posting this without proofreading, so sorry.
EvilHomer Again, John, pretexts. The demonization of the internet is a tactic, not a cause. Google wants money, and to get money, it is now betting on the global corporate power structure. It doesn't care about Ghostbusters, OR about trolls.
Any connections you might be encouraged to draw between the two situations - the demonization of the internet in the wake of Whatevergate, and the attempt to centralize and monopolize the internet - is, at best, an elaborate conspiracy theory that has been built for you, by your would-be rulers themselves. They want you focusing on non-issues so that you won't kick up a fuss when they finally shove social media back into the genie bottle, and we're all forcibly regressed to AOL '94.
Don't buy into it, John. You're smarter than you allow yourself credit for; keep your sense of perspective here.
And please stop talking about Ghostbusters.
John Holmes Motherfucker >>>So, in other words John, because audiences didn't like Ghostbusters, you are now hoping that the authorities will turn our internet into a curated corporate plantation.
Its like talking to the world's most loquacious brick wall.
EvilHomer Have I mischaracterized you? Are you NOT in favor of turning the internet into a corporate plantation? After all, you said, and I quote
>> Eventually, they will clamp down, and they should.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. In what way have I characterized your position?
EvilHomer MIScharacterized, rather. Blame auto-correct, which itself is part of this broader trend away from the internet as a bastion of freedom and higher thought, towards the internet as a mere panopticon run by Big Ad'va.
John Holmes Motherfucker Homer, you don't have the right to post to anything anywhere, and you never did. We all enjoy way beyond unprecedented access to a worldwide media platform where our words and are printed by default. It wasn't always this way. 20 years ago, you would have had to write a letter to the editor and see a sanitized 500 word version of your missive printed locally, Nobody has ever had the opportunities we enjoy.
What you're saying is that when using your unprecedented access to the media to post on someone else's website for free, if you're compelled by the owner of the site to respect the rights of others by not harassing them, the internet is just a plantation, and you're just a slave. I can't argue with this kind of ironclad logic. I guess you win.
EvilHomer "Respect the rights"? You don't have the right to not be harassed, and you never did.
See, John, "we all enjoy way beyond unprecedented access to a worldwide media platform where our words and are printed by default. It wasn't always this way. 20 years ago, you would have had to write a letter to the editor and see a sanitized 500 word version of your missive printed locally. Nobody has ever had the opportunities we enjoy. "
Unfortunately, there is now a problem. The problem is, predatory corporations (like Google) now want to see us all go back in time, to the time before, the time when we DID have to write a letter to the editor and hope that the editor would allow a sanitized version of our missive to be printed online. To you, who grew up knowing nothing else, that might sound like a good thing. To me, it does not. You and I both view the world in fundamentally different ways; you fear opportunities, you don't mind if we lose them, and you have a very dim view of human potential, which manifests itself in your yearning for an authority figure who can impose order upon our digital society. I, on the other hand, appreciate opportunities, I DO mind if we lose them, and I think human potentially can be limitless, if only we remain vigilant and refuse to once again allow others to place us in chains. You are the Hobbes to my Locke, so of course we will be in conflict on this.
But it is very gracious of you to concede before my arguments. Thank you Mr Hobbes! Please remember this, too, because as Google ramps up its War on Netizens, the conflict between serfdom and yeomanry will doubtlessly continue to be a topic of heated discussion.
John Holmes Motherfucker Unfortunately, there is now a problem. The problem is, predatory corporations (like Google) now want to see us all go back in time, to the time before, the time when we DID have to write a letter to the editor and hope that the editor would allow a sanitized version of our missive to be printed online. To you, who grew up knowing nothing else, that might sound like a gold thing.
Google wants to go back to the time when they weren't making all that money? Sure, kid, whatever you say.
Trust me, Homer, Google has no interest in derailing the gravy train.
The trolls are going to go too far, because thats how far they go, they can't stop themselves. These are people whose idea of freedom is so myopic and entitled that they lierally regard the speech of others as censorship. I've talked to them, this is what they really believe. They use harassment and intimidation to attempt to supress others. They're tyrants.
Pillager Projecting much? I find it interesting that *I* am called a manbaby, yet I don't call people disagreeing with me on Twitter harassment.
Reality is not a safe space. The world is not anyone's hugbox.
Our feels don't need corporate or gov't protection.
John Holmes Motherfucker The trolls are the ones who are driving this. You may not like my opinion, Homer, but my opinion drives nothing. If I had never been born, this would still be happening.
John Holmes Motherfucker >>Projecting much? I find it interesting that *I* am called a manbaby, yet I don't call people disagreeing with me on Twitter harassment.
(I'm just going to delete what I typed here. There's just no need.)
Someone takes a picture of Leslie Jones, ejaculates all over it, photographs the resulting "artwork" , and tweets her the results. Is that a disagreement?
Someone looks up the personal information of a journalist, starts tweeting her from an account he made up assuming a persona that's a cruel burlesque of her recently deceased father. Is that a disagreement?
This shit happens all the time, and it especially happens to women. It's a special penalty that women pay for participating in the internet, The more success they have, the more likely they are to be a target. Some of these dudebro pieces of shit guys love to cite a pew research study that says that both men and women are victims of abuse, which they think proves that wopm, aren't singled out, but they never to get to the part in the middle of page two where it explicitly says that the forms of harassment that young women experience are especially severe:
In a masterpoiece of Orewellian doublespeak,, women are said to be acting like victims when they speak up about it. According to this "logic", the way to NOT be a victim is to stay silent, and take the abuse.
If I was talking about disagreement or criticisism, I would have said so. Criticism isn't harassment, and harassment isn't criticism. Criticism is sort of what we all need more of.
John Holmes Motherfucker >>So, in other words John, because audiences didn't like Ghostbusters, you are now hoping that the authorities will turn our internet into a curated corporate plantation.
>>People who are to the right of Che Guevara still deserve to be heard.
>>Projecting much? I find it interesting that *I* am called a manbaby, yet I don't call people disagreeing with me on Twitter harassment.
And I didn't call you a manbaby, I apologized for losing my patience, and explained that you reminded me of someone else, and that was who I called a manbaby. But more than that, I fucking know the difference between harassment and disagreement.
I'm not going to engage with this kind of rhetoric anymore. I believe that when people are being harassed for their opinions, that is a threat to free speech, and I am very careful to advocate a remedy that doesn't expand anyone's power over anyone else. You aren't expected to agree, but this idea that I'm trying to regulate everybody's opinion is just crap. And if trying to respond to it isn't going to be hard, there are smarter people I could be talking to.
It isn''t always women who are being harassed by men. It isn't always leftists who are being harassed the right. Who knows who it's going to be in the future? I don't want to to see angry feminists organizing to harass men any more than anyone else does. You think that couldn't happen? And if it did, you can expect Thunderf00t to be way way touchier about it than Anita Sarkeesian.
Somebody recently posted something about "taking [a certain site] down" because of "an unholy war against anime in the name of feminism. " It's always about TAKING SOMEONE DOWN now. That's just a fucked up approach to discord, and I think it's making the world shittier. We've got a presidential candidate now who seems to spend all his time shitposting on twitter.
I advocate the idea that editing (by administrators) is not censorship, because there should be standards. Not everywhere, just somewhere. There are always going to plenty of places where you can shitpost. There should also be places where you can't. This should be determined not by government power, which is the same everywhere, but by the preexisting right of publishers to create their own editorial policy, according to freedom of the press as determined by the first amendment. If every publisher established their own policy, that should lead to a diverse internet that accomodates the needs of everybody.
This is to protect the rights of everybody, because that's I'm what I'm interested in.