Support NeoGAF

[Zackat]

I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of career YouTubers (and YouTube itself) want the "big time" money and the platform that go along with it, but none of the responsibility or oversight. And any time "old media", that covers things like business and technology, doing their job and reporting the facts, criticize them or talk about them (as they would anyone with a subscriber base of millions), it's suddenly framed as an attack and a whole lot of people get misled by folks like h3h3 who are woefully ignorant and reactionary.

It's incredibly frustrating.

a lot of them have no idea how popular they really are. like their words have a lot more weight than they ever thought they would. they are just wholly unprepared for it, because they are celebrities in their own right with no publicist or others around them.


OT: This dude seems to be pulling a fast one.

 

[Doctre81]

THere is no way to know much much anyone has lost because this is too recent. You get paid for the previous month.

 

[wildfire]

How many hoops are people willing to jump through before just recognizing that YouTube has an ad problem, very poor oversight, and a bunch of content creators with shitty opinions who are incentivized not to willingly label their content for mature audiences (because it demonitizes it)?

This seems like a conspiracy theory distraction that ignores the REAL problem that YouTube has had for a long time with 0 oversight on YouTube and an increasingly toxic platform. Patent trolls gonna patent troll, but he's only exposing a problem that already existed and that YouTube has willingly ignored while it rolled in the big bucks.

He's not even a patent troll.


Patent trolls only goal is to not make a product for the market and make money only by sueing people.


He had made the product and is selling it.


The article itself is pointing out that selling to advertisers is like selling toilet cleaning supplies to homes but not addressing the sewage treatment plants directly.


He wants to sell his product to Google directly and is trying to force their hand with his existing clients.

 

[213372bu]

Hmm, this isn't really a patent troll. Patent troll usually refers to companies that don't actually create anything, but buy up big batches of patents and then try to sue people with them.

On first read, this seems more like... a guy trying to create a problem where there isn't one, in order to swoop in and offer his patented solution to said non-problem. More of a con than anything.

I'd agree if he didn't comment about taking action against YouTube if they employed a system like his, (even though they already do.)

THere is no way to know much much anyone has lost because this is too recent. You get paid for the previous month.

You can see your monetization real-time in ADsense.

Apparently it looks like some saw 25% income on the day the boycott started, and others claim to be seeing 10%.

For reference big YTers like h3h3, Idubbbz, MaxMoeFoe, Blashphemous etc. all have shown or tweeted stuff confirming this. And this isn't affecting just them, all YTers are seeing less AD offers, and those that do offer ads give a significantly lower rate.

 

[wildfire]

are people really on this guy's side? just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. just pure greed.

It doesn't matter if he is doing it for greed.


YouTube created their own problem that he knew he could exploit.


A problem serious enough that advertisers agree with his results and paid for his team's services and software.

 

[Nanashrew]

I'd agree if he didn't comment about taking action against YouTube if they employed a system like his, (even though they already do.)


You can see your monetization real-time in ADsense.

Apparently it looks like some saw 25% income on the day the boycott started, and others claim to be seeing 10%.

For reference big YTers like h3h3, Idubbbz, MaxMoeFoe, Blashphemous etc. all have shown or tweeted stuff confirming this. And this isn't affecting just them, all YTers are seeing less AD offers, and those that do offer ads give a significantly lower rate.

How do you know that though? I saw this comment in the previous thread about the boycott on the last page.

My sister works in the AdSense department at their Ann arbor offices and they pulled everyone off the phones to review terrorism related videos the entire day. Google apparently has no script to review videos or a process that they could outsource, so they're repurposing employees to do this all week. Today they looked at KKK stuff and tomorrow is ISIS.

 

[jman2050]

So this guy basically brought to light (or fabricated?) the inefficacy of a potential client's technology, crippled their primary revenue stream in the process, and is now offering to sell his solution to them or else.

That's one heck of a way to sell your product.

 

[213372bu]

How do you know that though? I saw this comment in the previous thread about the boycott on the last page.

It's in the OP.

Google has hired third-party agencies to specifically target the "deep content" that he is targeting and used automatic systems.

Anyone who knows ADSense knows that there are automatic systems in place that will blacklist content into a cheaper tier or demonetize your videos depending on the severity of the title. The third-party agencies do the same thing but with content.

I'm assuming that poster doesn't know what the situation was.

 

[Dimefan3]

"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

 

[Haly]

are people really on this guy's side? just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. just pure greed.

If pure greed gets Youtube to clean up the alt-right videos on their site then I'm all for it.

You say "pure greed" like Youtube and Google's lackadaisical attitude towards the content hosted on their platforms isn't "pure greed" as well.

 

[DigtialT]

If pure greed gets Youtube to clean up the alt-right videos on their site then I'm all for it.

You say "pure greed" like Youtube and Google's lackadaisical attitude towards the content hosted on their platforms isn't "pure greed" as well.

This wouldn't do anything to stop those videos from being posted nor monetized, as YouTube already has a system in place that does what this guy is trying to sell.

 

[Mik2121]

He might have a good product there, but the way he's pushing it towards his potential client (Google)... yeah. I hope Google doesn't try to fuck this guy, because they probably could... and he would kinda have it coming (the whole "you can try to fix the trouble I just made apparent and that's causing you to lose money, but I will most likely sue you for patent infringement").

 

[Poodlestrike]

Hmm, this isn't really a patent troll. Patent troll usually refers to companies that don't actually create anything, but buy up big batches of patents and then try to sue people with them.

On first read, this seems more like... a guy trying to create a problem where there isn't one, in order to swoop in and offer his patented solution to said non-problem. More of a con than anything.

I mean, considering that he created an actual solution (and that saying he "created" the problem is kind of a stretch, the problem *does* exist he's just amplifying it), I don't think that you can really call it a con.

 

[jman2050]

This wouldn't do anything to stop those videos from being posted nor monetized, as YouTube already has a system in place that does what this guy is trying to sell.

If I'm understanding things correctly, I think the entire point is that, according to this guy at least, their system doesn't work.

 

[213372bu]

Please pretend to read the OP before posting

If pure greed gets Youtube to clean up the alt-right videos on their site then I'm all for it.

You say "pure greed" like Youtube and Google's lackadaisical attitude towards the content hosted on their platforms isn't "pure greed" as well.

This has nothing to do with alt-right or toxic content.

The system and videos targeted are "deep content" videos with little to no views and are essentially "hidden from YouTube". They make up little no amount of the total advertising on YT and Google already has agencies/programs that actively seek this content.

A patent troll essentially created a problem through misrepresentation and falsification and it's affecting all YouTubers. YouTube wouldn't even benefit from his technology as they already have systems and third-party agencies that target this content.

They would essentially being paying solely for PR and a system that automatically demonetizes videos with innocuous terms that are found on these "deep videos".

 

[Haly]

This wouldn't do anything to stop those videos from being posted nor monetized, as YouTube already has a system in place that does what this guy is trying to sell.

This is a claim by the OP which is, all things considered, pretty biased. It's obvious from the thread title alone that 213372bu is on the side of YouTube creators. Anyway it directly contradicts this.

My sister works in the AdSense department at their Ann arbor offices and they pulled everyone off the phones to review terrorism related videos the entire day. Google apparently has no script to review videos or a process that they could outsource, so they're repurposing employees to do this all week. Today they looked at KKK stuff and tomorrow is ISIS.

213372bu would have this thread believe that "Apparently Google/YouTube already have a system in place" and that the actual offending videos that have starts to get ads to pull out "are essentially hidden and receive little to no views", but I don't actually see any evidence of this? Some example videos would be convincing, or statements from the companies themselves pointing out which videos are the ones they take issue with, so we can cross reference the view count and 213372bu's claims.

Forgive me if I'm not taking his opinion as particularly objective when he uses such loaded and factually inaccurate language to push his point. "Patent troll", seriously.

This has nothing to do with alt-right or toxic content.

This is your conjecture. Even your article makes the claim that this guy's hate-speech detection technology actually works, and is its main selling point. As someone else alluded to, this guy supposedly has a "better mousetrap", and what he's doing is pointing out all the fucking mice crawling around on Google's turf to sell it. It's a hustle, sure, but this isn't a troll or manufactured, at least, not going by the actual contents of the article in question.

 

[213372bu]

"213372bu would have you believe..." "it's conjecture" shitpost

Did you read the article by Adage that plainly answers your questions? Did you read the OP that plainly answers your questions?

Did you do your own external research?

I feel like if you even skimmed the OP you'd have the answers to your questions.

 

[pixelation]

Fucking with so many people's money seems like a real poor decision.

Yes, i am a fan of several youtubers so knowing that they're getting paid less is real shitty.

 

[Haly]

"213372bu would have you believe..."

Did you read the article by Adage? Did you read the OP?

I feel like if you really wanted the answers to your questions you would have them.

Yes I did, and I did it without paying attention to your tearfully obvious selective bolding. Here, let me give it a try.

So why have Google and seemingly sophisticated ad tech firms failed to find the stuff he keeps finding? "They aren't really understanding key trending or key words, and they're not looking for it like we do," Mr. Feinberg said. "I have a database of thousands of words and phrases linked to nefarious activity."

Whether all this will help Mr. Feinberg close a deal with Google or anyone else is hard to say. If he doesn't and Google develops its own solution, he can try to stake a patent claim. Does that make him a patent troll? He argues that he's doing something different than patent litigators that apply an obscure patent to something tech firms were already doing anyway. Mr. Feinberg, by contrast, has gone to great and public lengths in recent weeks to demonstrate that his technology can root out problems Google hasn't found.

None of this:

This has nothing to do with "toxic" content or alt-right content.

The man's patented tech is to find "deep" videos on YouTube of terrorist attacks/racist content etc. that are essentially hidden and receive little to no views.

YouTube already has a system in place to accomplish what this man's tech does, and they hire third-party companies to flag these videos.

He's extorting YouTube and content creators there based on a non-problem.

Is in your article, which is the sum total of your evidence. What I do see here is a very self-evident defense of YouTube creators' livelihoods, which is fair, but don't misrepresent this article with your personal crusade.

 

[213372bu]

Yes I did, and I did it without paying attention to your tearfully obvious selective bolding. Here, let me give it a try.

Speaking of selective bolding, you seemed to completely removed all context and removed sentences that answer your questions. lmao, just admit you didn't read the OP.

His methodology is outlined in the article. He utilizes a database that gathers terms on infringing content.

The article and OP also explicitly state the systems YouTube already has in place both manually by a third party-agency (that's named) and shows their automatic systems in place.

It's literally impossible to read the OP or article and come up with your weird assertions.

 

[Haly]

I like how you bolded only the first part of this quote:

He's logged thousands of sometimes innocuous or obscure sounding terms he says "co-trend" with such hate speech or exhortations to violence, which in turn helps him finding offensive videos.

Ignoring that, yes, innocuous terms might lead to offensive videos. This is how neural networks function. They're fed data, and from data they create patterns. What this says is this guy is employing some similar network to find problematic videos, and that whatever Google's algorithm is, it's not using the same keywords as his.

What this doesn't say, but I think you want it to say, is that he's creating false flag keywords that harm H3H3's ad revenue or what the fuck ever.

 

[Haly]

The article and OP also explicitly state the systems YouTube already has in place both manually by a third party-agency (that's named) and shows their automatic systems in place.

And last week, as major advertisers one after the other pressed "pause" on YouTube advertising, Google said in a blog post that it's beefing up its tech efforts and hiring more people to prevent placement of ads with unsavory content.

Do you understand how time works? This sentence very clearly implies that Google responded to the ad revenues by "beefing up tech efforts", not that "those beefed up tech efforts were already in place".

Which means, if I really need to spell it out, that whatever was there was not good enough for advertisers, and that Google is trying to make it better to appease them and that this guy, Eric, supposedly has the better solution, and that he wants to sell it to Google.

 

[213372bu]

I like how you bolded only the first part of this quote:

Ignoring that, yes, innocuous terms might lead to offensive videos. This is how neural networks function. They're fed data, and from data they create patterns. What this says is this guy is employing some similar network to find problematic videos, and that whatever Google's algorithm is, it's not using the same keywords as his.

What this doesn't say, but I think you want it to say, is that he's creating false flag keywords that harm H3H3's ad revenue or what the fuck ever.

From the OP:

Certainly Google knows plenty about artificial intelligence and machine learning, as its executives have eagerly informed marketers in public and private presentations for years. And last week, as major advertisers one after the other pressed "pause" on YouTube advertising, Google said in a blog post that it's beefing up its tech efforts and hiring more people to prevent placement of ads with unsavory content.

But Mr. Feinberg said in an interview on Friday that he doubts Google can succeed. At least, he said, "not without violating my patent."

Seemingly there shouldn't be a market for what Mr. Feinberg has to sell. Brand safety, or monitoring ad placements to prevent brands from appearing alongside porn and other embarrassing content, is a standard part of offerings from digital audience measurement firms such as Moat, which in late 2015 became the first such company invited in by YouTube to monitor the site for agencies and brands.

--

You could literally just use Google search and find out what the AdSense team does. From the backlisting to putting YouTubers on lower tiers to demonetization.

Or you could read the OP/do your own research before acting like a fool and getting defensive when it's made apparent that you can't be bothered to read.

 

[Haly]

Nothing in that paragraph says Moat was successful in preventing videos from being played next to hate speech, which is your claim for this whole hubbub being a "non-problem". Maybe they managed to consistently protect brands from "porn" and "other embarrassing content", but again, it makes no specific mention of hate speech, alt-right content, terrorism, or white nationalism.

 

[Nanashrew]

I imagine what's there is not good enough. PBG marks all his videos as PG rated but some videos of his with the word "old" in the title were demonetized (but were later fixed after appealing).

None of this looks good. This guy doing what he's doing and Google just being incompetent with YouTube like always.

 

[213372bu]

snip

From "there is no systems put in place" to "it's all conjecture, who knows what's happening" to "Were they successful, because it looks like they're needed?"

It's literally all spelled out from you in the OP which is reliably sourced by AdAge which specializes in advertising.

If you want to know about the systems YouTube has in place, though it is already glimpsed in the article, you could go do research. Google. Go on their site. Go on their blog. Look up adsense. Something that doesn't have you acting defensive, yet glaringly clueless.

The article even explicitly answers that they're not needed, but I'm not going to be bothered to dedicate my time feeding you information in the OP one post at a time.

 

[Haly]

I'm bored and I have some time to kill so let me go through your OP sentence by sentence to show you how biased and nonsensical it is.

This has nothing to do with alt-right or toxic content.

Conjecture, not supported by the article. Article makes no mention of alt-right or toxic content.

The system and videos targeted are "deep content" videos with little to no views and are essentially "hidden from YouTube". They make up little no amount of the total advertising on YT and Google

A claim with no evidence to back it up, certainly nothing in the article.

already has agencies/programs that actively seek this content.

This is true, but as I've explained, they're obviously not doing a good enough job if Eric has advertisers spooked. Or do you think Eric singlehandedly fooled the entirety of advertisers on YouTube? Even if you do think this it's still in the realm of conjecture.

A patent troll essentially created a problem through

Misleading and loaded usage of "patent troll".

misrepresentation and falsification and it's affecting all YouTubers.

The article makes no judgement as to the efficacy of Eric's touted technology, nor the scope and veracity of the ad debacle. This is conjecture.

YouTube wouldn't even benefit from his technology as they already have systems and third-party agencies that target this content.

As said before, whatever they have is not good enough. Google admitted to as such in their blog post that you bolded to prove your point.

They would essentially being paying solely for PR and a system that automatically demonetizes videos with innocuous terms that are found on these "deep videos".

This is an assumption and also conjecture, as the article quotes him to say:

He's logged thousands of sometimes innocuous or obscure sounding terms he says "co-trend" with such hate speech or exhortations to violence, which in turn helps him finding offensive videos.

Note this doesn't say he flags videos with innocuous terms. It says the innocuous terms help lead him to the offending videos. Two different things.

Recently advertisers on YouTube have been completely pulling their ads of the medium for "supporting hate speech", analysts claim this has cost Google $750 million and has led to some successful YouTubers receiving less than 10% of their normal income.

This is one of the few factually true things you've stated so far.

Many on the service became confused and were wondering how this suddenly is rocking YouTubers. Many like h3h3 pointed out that a certain journalist was pressuring advertising companies by showing their ads marked on videos with heinous titles, despite the fact that YouTube already automatically demonetizes videos with those terms, essentially questioning the validity of his screen caps.

Of course H3H3 would say this, he needs to protect his revenue and he needs public support to do it. Furthermore, he attacks the Wall Street Journal, not Eric himself.

a problem that isn't prevalent

Conjecture, as I've stated above.

on the platform and is already being monitored by third-party agencies that were hired by Google.

Not good enough, as I've state above, or else Google wouldn't feel the need to "beef it up".

Feinberg's patented technology would automatically demonetize/ban certain content based on innocuous terms that are found in already infringing content.

Misrepresentation of his words.

Feinberg doubts that YouTube will be able to bring back advertisers without his technology, and if they are able to, that their methodology might be violating his patent.

Accurate.

Meanwhile every YouTube channel that monetizes their channels are seeing SHARP demonetization drops.

Accurate.

In sum:

What you're actually telling the truth about:
- YouTuber ad revenue is being affected.
- Eric is shining a spotlight on a problem and giving advertisers cold feet.
- Google has a filters in place already.
- Eric has a legal plan to sell his technology.

Where you're just assuming things or making things up:
- Eric's algorithm would target harmless videos, that is, create "false flags".
- There is no significant problem on YouTube, and what problematic content exists have so little views as to be meaningless.
- The advertisement pullout has nothing to do with hate speech or the alt-right.
- Eric is a patent troll.
- Google/YouTube's filter technologies are up to snuff. They aren't, see: restricted rainbow debacle

 

[Haly]

The article even explicitly answers that they're not needed, but I'm not going to be bothered to dedicate my time feeding you information in the OP one post at a time.

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired:

Seemingly there shouldn't be a market for what Mr. Feinberg has to sell. Brand safety, or monitoring ad placements to prevent brands from appearing alongside porn and other embarrassing content, is a standard part of offerings from digital audience measurement firms such as Moat, which in late 2015 became the first such company invited in by YouTube to monitor the site for agencies and brands.

What this is saying: "One would think there is no market for Eric's solution because it's already filled by companies like Moat."

What this is not saying: "Eric's solution is indefensible, as in, he should not do this in the same sense that you should not steal."

 

[Haly]

Read the two comments on that article:

I think it's so important that someone was finally able to crack down on this. Although YouTube videos are an awesome source of advertisement for different brands, it doesn't look to good when your brand shows up before a terrorism related video. It's crazy to think how much is not censured on the world wide web or that goes beyond even huge companies like Google, and how they aren't able to track every key word that is typed in. This is huge for the ad agencies and their brands. I think that brands should pay more close attention this since it effects how their consumers as well as none consumers see them. Although it will effect the amount of people that view their ads, I think it would be a smart move for the brands of these ads to put a hold on their advertising on these sites like other big brands have been doing. It's a huge wake up call for Google to start watching out for this kind of unsafe content that is being found on their search engines. I think this whole movement will overall help get rid of some of the unsafe sites and content that people can easily get sent to through YouTube and google, which overall will help brands and ad agencies help make a better image for themselves with cleaning up the ads on these unsafe sites.

My name is Jacob Barksdale, and I'm a sophomore Marketing student at ASU. I've always been interested in advertising, so I thought that this article was a pretty good representation of some of the issues and opportunities in advertising at the moment. I was aware that Google has been struggling with ad placement recently. The article below this one even mentions that more brands have suspended their ads with Google because their ads keep getting placed alongside inappropriate content.

With that being said, it sounds like Eric Feinberg has come up with a great system to combat this recent trend. I do think it's important to be aware of the terror and hate content on YouTube and other Google sites, especially for businesses in today's society. All it takes is a couple screenshots of poorly placed ads to associate a business with something as terrible as a neo-Nazi group. Some might say that Feinberg is wrong for bringing these instances to light, but to me it seems like he means to keep businesses from tarnishing their reputations. And if he can develop a system that can more accurately spot terrorist and hate-filled content, I don't think anyone should try to stop him. More power to him if he can use a patent to profit off of it.

Do these really sound like people who think Eric is a patent troll and that there is no problem on YouTube? Maybe it's you alone who understood what the article "really" meant and that I, Jacob, and Riley horribly misread the author's intent. Or perhaps you just have an agenda you really need to push and this looked like some great, credible material with which to push it.

Hey, let me quote the article that jacob refers to so you can really see what AdAge is saying instead of what you want it to say:

Another wave of marketers has suspended advertising on YouTube or in some cases other Google properties in what's shaping up as an unprecedented revolt against the world's largest digital media player over ads placed with objectionable content.
General Motors, Walmart, Pepsico and FX Networks on Friday joined brand marketers that include Johnson & Johnson, Verizon and AT&T, which earlier in the week said they've halted YouTube advertising over brand-safety issues.

The Association of National Advertisers also issued a statement Friday supporting "several ANA members" that "have suspended their advertising on Google websites, including YouTube, after some ads were placed near objectionable content including hate speech and terrorist-oriented websites"

"Their concerns for their brands' wellbeing is rational, appropriate and warranted," said the statement, which was attributed to ANA CEO Bob Liodice

"All agency and media partners should recognize that -- above all other objectives -- protecting the brand should stand head and shoulders above everything else," the statement continued. The first priority for brands as they choose digital ad platforms, it said, is "to do no harm."

In its own, much more terse statement, GM it is "suspending all targeted ads on YouTube until Google can adhere to our brand standards."
FX Networks said it's suspending advertising on all Google properties after an ad ran on questionable content.
And Walmart put out a strongly worded statement to the same effect. "The content with which we are being associated is appalling and completely against our company values," the company said. "We have asked Google to rectify this situation immediately. Until resolved, we have initiated the process to remove all ads from Google's non-search platforms."

A spokeswoman later softened things by adding: "We have a longstanding relationship with Google, and we are confident they will resolve this issue as quickly as possible."
Pepsico said in a statement that it was "deeply concerned and terribly disappointed that some of our brand ads have appeared alongside videos that promote hate and are offensive."

"PepsiCo has taken immediate steps to remove all advertising from non-search platforms until Google can absolutely ensure that this will not happen again," it said.
Despite the snowballing advertiser defections, equity markets aren't punishing Google much over the issue, which suggests investors don't expect major lasting damage. The stock of parent company Alphabet fell around 4% on the week, but less than 0.4% on Friday amid the lastest wave of suspensions.

A Google spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment regarding the latest advertiser pullback, but earlier in the week said the company had begun "an extensive review of our advertising policies and have made a public commitment to put in place changes that give brands more control over where their ads appear."

Highlight, mine.

For the record, I really did read your OP, and the article. I read them both multiple times just to make sure I wasn't going crazy because the article was saying one thing while you were saying something completely different.

 

[necrosis]

he's pretty clearly overstating how widespread these videos are, but unless he's making the videos himself, i don't really have an issue with him pushing his product

in the interim, i'm excited at the prospect of people like h3h3 & jontron losing money

 

[Defect]

he's pretty clearly overstating how widespread these videos are, but unless he's making the videos himself, i don't really have an issue with him pushing his product

in the interim, i'm excited at the prospect of people like h3h3 & jontron losing money

Why h3h3?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Good for him.

 

[Just_myles]

Not mad him. Get paid.

 

[jellies_two]

Based on the bitching and whining by Prison Planet I am pleased that someone is using computers to show there has been a problem with mainstream brands monetizing hate. i don't think google has a good track record of being pro-active about stuff especially if it hinders their bottom line, they tend to do stuff and ask for permission later. The excuse that their video network is too large to effectively categorize is shown to be bogus.

 

[jviggy43]

Why h3h3?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ489KjPqlc

Undermining youtube's actual problem with this by playing the victim youtube streamer card. "oh no racism isn't that big of a deal on youtube, the real problem is youtubers losing money".

Oh look now hes sticking up for pewdiepie. What a fuck this guy is,

 

[Chainsawkitten]

He didn't create the issue, he just pointed it out.

The only problem here is that software patents still exist in the US.

 

[hidys]

The hustle is strong in this one.

 

[HoodWinked]

this guy is a patent troll. all his "sophisticated" tech is doing is probably just a transcript "ctrl+f" for some phrases.

all this does is just ignore context of phrases. this is just some bullshit patent that is way too broad. that should have never been granted in the first place.

this is isnt productive or something to commend this guy on. it would be like starting a war/chaos then being the arms dealer for both sides.

 

[Enco]

Sounds like an asshole.

Pretty snakey thing to do.

 

[Carcetti]

The actual problems are a) Google's not handling the issue when it should've been handled b) USA's insane patent laws

Can't hate the player in this case.

 

[Lo_Fi]

Anybody else seeing this?

It's April 1st.

 

[ClosingADoor]

He doesn't create the problem, he just points it out. Don't see the issue here. If Google had a decent system in place to handle this stuff, the problem wouldn't have existed in the first place.

 

[cDNA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ489KjPqlc

Undermining youtube's actual problem with this by playing the victim youtube streamer card. "oh no racism isn't that big of a deal on youtube, the real problem is youtubers losing money".

Oh look now hes sticking up for pewdiepie. What a fuck this guy is,

H3H3 totally downplays the problem while complaining about the WSJ boogeyman (it was media in the UK that started this investigation). Then, when he is presented with evidence of a racist video with the ads, he makes excuse after excuse of why this don't matter.

 

[Fret]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ489KjPqlc

Undermining youtube's actual problem with this by playing the victim youtube streamer card. "oh no racism isn't that big of a deal on youtube, the real problem is youtubers losing money".

Oh look now hes sticking up for pewdiepie. What a fuck this guy is,

uh, what? How exactly is racism a "big deal" on youtube? Do you know how much data is uploaded every single day? Videos are already automatically demonetized with any sort of offensive content in the tags.

THere is no way to know much much anyone has lost because this is too recent. You get paid for the previous month.

Not true - analytics updates within days.

 

[ClosingADoor]

uh, what? How exactly is racism a "big deal" on youtube? Do you know how much data is uploaded every single day? Videos are already automatically demonetized with any sort of offensive content in the tags.

The Pewdiepie and Jontron stuff shows that there are problems with this among major channels.

Then we have Google not catching a ton of videos with such and other extremist content, which the whole advertising issue is about.

 

[nynt9]

This isn't just affecting toxic content creators. This totally innocuous channel, 50 ducks in a hot tub, also posted about how they're losing as buys. It's all about a farmer guy who raises ducks. No politics, no offensive content. Just ducks.

 

[Timedog]

Is this the part where Google lawsuit trolls him, and sues him over and over again until he no longer wishes to live on this earth?

 

[Fret]

The Pewdiepie and Jontron stuff shows that there are problems with this among major channels.

Then we have Google not catching a ton of videos with such and other extremist content, which the whole advertising issue is about.

Pewdiepie and Jontron are completely different issues. PDP made a bad joke and apologized (even if you didnt like his apology). Jontron literally went on an insane rant for an hour about his idiotic racist beliefs. I don't understand how Gaf puts these two together constantly. And what, you expect youtube to demonetize Jontrons videos? Even though I think he's a massive racist, it's a slippery slope for youtube to go around demonetizing people for their beliefs.

And Google hasn't catched what videos? How do you know it's a ton of videos? How many views do they have? This was a non issue that sites like the WSJ created to stir up controversy and its affecting my own living on youtube.

This has nothing to do with alt-right or toxic content.

The system and videos targeted are "deep content" videos with little to no views and are essentially "hidden from YouTube". They make up little no amount of the total advertising on YT and Google already has agencies/programs that actively seek this content.

A patent troll essentially created a problem through misrepresentation and falsification and it's affecting all YouTubers. YouTube wouldn't even benefit from his technology as they already have systems and third-party agencies that target this content.

They would essentially being paying solely for PR and a system that automatically demonetizes videos with innocuous terms that are found on these "deep videos".

Absolutely correct. Great post, wish more people here understood this.

 

[ElFly]

are people really on this guy's side? just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. just pure greed.

um

why would you be on youtube's side, who is monetizing videos promoting hate speech, terrorism and such kind of content?

 

[nynt9]

um

why would you be on youtube's side, who is monetizing videos promoting hate speech, terrorism and such kind of content?

Because it's not as simple as that. Non toxic videos are getting hit by this too. See my post above.