UKC

I don't know how many have heard, but YouTubers of all political persuasions who create news and political content have had the rug pulled from under them. It appears that due to a couple of newspaper articles in The Wall Street Journal and The Times, where they suggested Kraft had an advert inadvertently placed on a very lowly subscribed Neo-Nazi channel. So the advertisers have panicked and pulled their adds, YouTube have panicked too and toughened up the algorithm to demonetise hateful content and now all news channels have been demonetised. So any mention of anything political or religious is getting targeted.

Now, you may not like YouTube or some of the channels, but it is IMO, one of the best places to get in depth information, an alternative views or even information that doesn't get mentioned at all in the corporate media. These content creators, not only spend a lot of money on their content, for some it's their job. A lot of them have to had to appeal to their subscribes to fund them through services like Patreon just to survive. So, if you have some favourite channels they are going to disappear with out funding.

It's funny that when these channels start to seriously threaten mainstream media, this happens! It feels like a cracked down on freedom of speech to me.

youtube.com/watch?v=MXzyAsHH5fs&

In reply to Hugh J:

Disaster? Hot air more like it.

Keep watching!

In reply to Hugh J:

It's nothing to do with "mainstream media being threatened," and all to do with brands not wanting adverts placed on sites which could affiliate them with hate.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/23/youtube-google-boycott-a...

In reply to Big Ger:

That's not what Kyle Kulinski, David Packman and Sargon of Akkad are saying. Apppaently, it was one ad that got on a neo-Nazi channel (with less than a thousand subscribers), that got through the safety net. Sounds like fake news blown out of proportion and companies wanting to screw YouTube, but it will hurt YouTubers more than Google.

And to tell the truth, if you like these people, or maybe even you don't but like to hear free speech, why not support them? In a way it's more moral, as they can keep going and the tax dodging Google empire gets less money.

In reply to Hugh J: It's an awful place to get news and information as its full of absolute rubbish and made up rubbish. Sargon of Akkad - really? Really - a reasonable source of news, opinion ? Ever heard the phrase fake news?

The other two appear on traditional media too.

In reply to Hugh J:


That all sounds a bit "tin foil beanie" to me mate

."Holden and Kia have pulled their ads from YouTube after they appeared on a video abusing Ita Buttrose. "

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/why-advertisers-are-boyc...

In reply to Hugh J:


Oh dear. Someone once said of the little Sargon that he's such low hanging fruit he's essentially a tomato.

In reply to wintertree:

And on another thread I wrote:

"I listened to a British podcaster last night - Sargon of Akkad. What a prick! Anyone else got any views on this guy? Maybe I'm missing something?"

It's not just about sitting in an echo chamber. Some of us can decipher what is good and what is not.

In reply to wbo:


Would veritable sources of news include, The Mail, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, even the BBC gets stick from some on here. How can we tell what is real or not? By looking for stuff from alternative sources and coming to a more educated guessimation of what is really going on.

But you can carry on solely watching and reading corporate media if you like, I'm sure they don't have agendas.

In reply to Hugh J:

It just all smacks of a massive victory for the SJW brigade and companies are running scarred of them. I mean how many people actually associate the advert with a particular video? Or just press the skip button as soon as it appears?

But perhaps, in the long run it is a better scenario to get funding from services like Patreon and PayPal? Both Kyle and Sargon say they will never take corporate sponsorship.

In reply to Hugh J:

Is it going to impact on the GCN coverage of Paris–Roubaix?

In reply to felt:

I doubt it, but possibly. I think the algorithms have been tightened up to target any political content. Oh, hang on, any mention of drugs could get demonetised.

In reply to Big Ger:


You'd think FIG or Lockheed-Martin or Charter Arms would find hate sites the perfect place to advertise.
"Hate your neighbour? Buy a gun!"

In reply to Big Ger:

Agreeing with you here for once. Miracles do happen....

CB

In reply to Hugh J:
by SJW brigade, do you mean people that really don't like racist / sexist / conspiracy spouting /anti-Semitic turds?

edit:
Just noticed Breitbart's Steve Brannon is off the National Security Council. Fake News.

In reply to toad:
The problem with the SJW brigade is that they just don't realise the way to defeat arguments that you don't like is by debate and not just deplatforming speakers. Their problem is they either don't have the wit to do this or otherwise the justifiable arguments to do this. And besides, in order to be able to challenge bad ideas you must first know what they are.

In reply to toad:


TFFT. Let's hope The Donald shows him the exit door.

In reply to Hugh J:


How does one join the SJW Brigade? Is it like the international brigade in the Spanish Civil War and they take volunteers? ¡No pasarán!

In reply to Hugh J:


Oh. And you were doing so well. "Unless you pay me I won't post and that will violate my right of freedom of speech". Surely you can't be trying to argue that?

In reply to Hugh J:


Certainly the advertisers on YouTube can decipher the crap...