Advertiser Exposes Possible Youtube Channel Blacklist - David Pakman

[TheJoey]

[media]https://youtu.be/_lOlFFv_GGo[/media]

Basically:
Youtube has been saying that some content is not advertiser friendly and therefor must be demonetized, IMPLYING advertiser backlash.
Advertiser that chooses specifically to put ads on David Pakman's channel was DENIED the ability to do so, due to words like "homosexual" and "secular" in the titles of SOME of his videos.

Pakman's revenue has gone down to almost $0 per day.

[credesniper]

First a terrible content ID/strike system, youtubeheros, and now this? Ouch.

[RB33]

Why can't they just let the advertisers that want it to put ads on controversial videos, what's controversial is subjective, it might not be for some advertisers.

[OmniConsUme]

JESUS is YouTube commiting suicide here,

[Mister Sandman]

[QUOTE=RB33;52068757]Why can't they just let the advertisers that want it to put ads on controversial videos, what's controversial is subjective, it might not be for some advertisers.[/QUOTE]

Because the Wall Street Journal will turn around, say "ADS ARE PLAYING ON CONTROVERSIAL VIDEOS", and youtube will get shit and lose money. They'll just gleam over the fact that advertisers are choosing to [I]specifically[/I] put ads on those videos.

[Splarg]

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52068819]Because the Wall Street Journal will turn around, say "ADS ARE PLAYING ON CONTROVERSIAL VIDEOS", and youtube will get shit and lose money. They'll just gleam over the fact that advertisers are choosing to [I]specifically[/I] put ads on those videos.[/QUOTE]

But running ads on the O'Reilly Factor for years until the shit hits the fan, yep that's totally okay.

[Digivee]

Patreon gains even more users, story at 11

[.Ducky]

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52068779]JESUS is YouTube commiting suicide here,[/QUOTE]

I doubt YouTube will ever fall other than by its own volition or some fraud exposure. It's too big and has a ton of features that other websites lack and we take for granted. Stuff like vidme has less of a chance to take down YouTube than Hitbox has to take down twitch.

[TheJoey]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52069015]I doubt YouTube will ever fall other than by its own volition or some fraud exposure. It's too big and has a ton of features that other websites lack and we take for granted. Stuff like vidme has less of a chance to take down YouTube than Hitbox has to take down twitch.[/QUOTE]

youtube costs google money and they gain no profit from its services.

conspiracy theory: google is sinking youtube on purpose as an excuse to remove it. this is the only reason i could see youtube being taken down or its features stripped.

[Zenreon]

He went on a Sargon stream to discuss what's happening.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPVAsq6W5sE[/media]

[Xmarksit]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52069093]conspiracy theory: google is sinking youtube on purpose as an excuse to remove it. this is the only reason i could see youtube being taken down or its features stripped.[/QUOTE]

I don't think they're "sinking it" just that they're choosing options which limit the amount they pay.
If it benefits the company more whose to say they couldn't give a shit if a few hundred youtubers fall into dire times because of it?
There's thousands if not millions of youtubers that could potentially replace them within days.

To be honest, I agree ads shouldn't be played on videos that genuinely advocate for terrorism.
But people having a laugh or those that are just trying to inform is being overly sensitive and to me, a lame excuse to not giving them ads.

[DireWolf]

I wonder what site will replace YouTube, because it really feels inevitable at this point.

[Coolgame8013]

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;52070342]I wonder what site will replace YouTube, because it really feels inevitable at this point.[/QUOTE]

None, unless of course one such site is willing to take on the mounting costs with little to no reward in sight.

[Gmod4ever]

[QUOTE=coolgame8013;52070413]None, unless of course one such site is willing to take on the mounting costs with little to no reward in sight.[/QUOTE]

I, for one, welcome our PornHub overlords.

And I'm not even exaggerating. There's only really three companies I know of that have the resources and the infrastructure to compete with YouTube: Amazon, Facebook, and Pornhub.

I don't know if Amazon really has any interest in doing a user-contributed streaming site, though I suspect with its AWS / EC2 infrastructure, it might be a viable option. Facebook has its own video-streaming already implemented, so I don't think they'd be terribly interested in doing more.

But Pornhub? Pornhub's functionality, both for viewers and for uploaders, is already extremely similar to YouTube. And they already have the capability to process and serve thousands, if not millions, of videos a day.

Pornhub could do it. And, honestly, I think given the right opportunity, they absolutely would. They seem to have this mission to make Pornhub be a household name, and competing with YouTube and succeeding would definitely help them with that.

[Silly Sil]

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52070600]I, for one, welcome our PornHub overlords.

And I'm not even exaggerating. There's only really three companies I know of that have the resources and the infrastructure to compete with YouTube: Amazon, Facebook, and Pornhub.

I don't know if Amazon really has any interest in doing a user-contributed streaming site, though I suspect with its AWS / EC2 infrastructure, it might be a viable option. Facebook has its own video-streaming already implemented, so I don't think they'd be terribly interested in doing more.

But Pornhub? Pornhub's functionality, both for viewers and for uploaders, is already extremely similar to YouTube. And they already have the capability to process and serve thousands, if not millions, of videos a day.

Pornhub could do it. And, honestly, I think given the right opportunity, they absolutely would. They seem to have this mission to make Pornhub be a household name, and competing with YouTube and succeeding would definitely help them with that.[/QUOTE]
I don't see anyone who wants to be taken seriously go there. Gaming vids, maybe. But anything related to politics?

[BlackMageMari]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52070724]I don't see anyone who wants to be taken seriously go there. Gaming vids, maybe. But anything related to politics?[/QUOTE]

Well I mean a lot of YouTubers do metaphorically masturbate on camera - so I'm sure they'd fit in and be taken seriously.

[Hanso]

What shit practice, if a company WANTS to put ads on a "controversial" video, why not let them?

[Silly Sil]

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52070739]Well I mean a lot of YouTubers do metaphorically masturbate on camera - so I'm sure they'd fit in and be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean? Jokes? How is that on the same level as porn? You're not supposed to take jokes literally.

[Thelurker1234]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52070724]I don't see anyone who wants to be taken seriously go there. Gaming vids, maybe. But anything related to politics?[/QUOTE]

Youtube political content sounds like it's the perfect calibre for that sort of website actually

[MissingNoGuy55]

i had a feeling there was a blacklist considering how quickly channels could get demonetized

youtube's tweet about it being a bug recently only made it more likely that some kind of list was in play

[J.C.DentonUNATCO]

[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;52070839]i had a feeling there was a blacklist considering how quickly channels could get demonetized

youtube's tweet about it being a bug recently only made it more likely that some kind of list was in play[/QUOTE]

That's youtube's first excuse. Anything that causes an uproar: it's a bug.

[BlackMageMari]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52070766]What do you mean? Jokes? How is that on the same level as porn? You're not supposed to take jokes literally.[/QUOTE]

I meant it as in that there are quite a number of egotistical YouTubers out there who engage in masturbatory discussions and circlejerking. So, they'd be perfect for Pornhub...

[Jojje]

Man, fuck the Wall Street Journal. Just the death throes of a dying medium trying to kill the next generation and save itself.

[Silly Sil]

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52070854]I meant it as in that there are quite a number of egotistical YouTubers out there who engage in masturbatory discussions and circlejerking. So, they'd be perfect for Pornhub...[/QUOTE]
Oh sorry. The meaning was lost on me. You're absolutely right.

[Crimor]

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52070600]I, for one, welcome our PornHub overlords.

And I'm not even exaggerating. There's only really three companies I know of that have the resources and the infrastructure to compete with YouTube: Amazon, Facebook, and Pornhub.

I don't know if Amazon really has any interest in doing a user-contributed streaming site, though I suspect with its AWS / EC2 infrastructure, it might be a viable option. Facebook has its own video-streaming already implemented, so I don't think they'd be terribly interested in doing more.

But Pornhub? Pornhub's functionality, both for viewers and for uploaders, is already extremely similar to YouTube. And they already have the capability to process and serve thousands, if not millions, of videos a day.

Pornhub could do it. And, honestly, I think given the right opportunity, they absolutely would. They seem to have this mission to make Pornhub be a household name, and competing with YouTube and succeeding would definitely help them with that.[/QUOTE]

A few lpers(2bfp for example) have already tossed some of their more nsfw games on pornhub, even managed to get ad revenue from them if I remember right :v: