Still More Advertisers Pull Google Ads Over YouTube Hate Videos (morningstar.com)

"A week after Google apologized for running customers' advertisements alongside objectionable videos, triggering a change in policy, its YouTube site is still rife with examples that are angering more big advertisers and causing some to cut spending with the tech giant," reports the Dow Jones Newswire. Reporters from the Wall Street Journal spotted ads from Microsoft, Amazon, and Procter & Gamble appearing on hate videos -- and thus indirectly funding them. An anonymous reader quotes their report: Asked about the Journal's finding that their ads were still appearing with such content on YouTube as of Thursday night, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Dish Network Corp. said Friday they were suspending spending on all Google advertising except targeted search ads. Starbucks Corp. and General Motors Co. said they were pulling their ads from YouTube. FX Networks, part of 21st Century Fox Inc., said it was suspending all advertising spending on Google, including search ads and YouTube. Wal-Mart said: "The content with which we are being associated is appalling and completely against our company values."
An executive at one of the affected companies complained that Google "had assured us over the past few days that our brands were safe from this type of content. Despite their assurances, it's clear they couldn't give assurance."

Comments

Alternative media.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.

Re:Alternative media.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many uploaders shut down comments so they don't have to listen to people complaining.

Re: Alternative media.

[ArmoredDragon]

I doubt they would shut it down, it's just too valuable.

I think it's most likely that they'd change their policies (up to and including implementing a censorship policy that extends beyond its current one that only bans illegal and pornographic content) and if that fails, they'd sell it. But outright shutting it down just wouldn't make any sense.

Would be a shame if they went as far as increasing censorship policies though. I remember around the time of Benghazi when Hillary (rather blatantly) lied about that Innocence of Muslims video being the cause of those people dying, there was huge pressure from the US government and some of the actors for Google to delete it, and they stood their ground and refused on the basis of freedom of speech. That was quite a commendable thing because of the costs they had to incur for defending what was otherwise a really poorly made video (from what I heard, I never watched it.)

I think in an ideal world, any and all content should remain accessible and shouldn't be subject to deletion, (Reddit) nor should any unpopular opinions be criminalized (Europe, who have failed to learn from the past) no matter how stupid it is. Even if the idiots are given a forum, the truth will be vindicated.

That is not to say or imply that they should have the right to sponsorship though -- far from it.

Re: Alternative media.

[Anonymous Coward]

violation of the first? the constitution is law that governs corporations? you don't know what the constitution or the bill of rights is, do ya frenchy.

Re:Alternative media.

[thegarbz]

I doubt people who sit and spout racist shit into a camera are doing it for profit.

Re: Alternative media.

[AmiMoJo]

I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them. That generally means that the content creator can't earn revenue through YouTube any more, but the videos are not being censored or removed.

This has actually been happening for ages due to copyright issues. For example, a lot of Mario players on Twitch also post clips to YouTube, but they can't be monetized because Nintendo won't allow it and will file copyright claims if you try to. So they make their money from Twitch and Patreon and merchandise, rather than YouTube ads.

Sucks but you can't really force advertisers to give you money.

Re:Alternative media.

[Dunbal]

The advertisers have a right to not have their ads associated with hate videos

This is so funny. Advertisers think people actually watch their ads. Let alone care.

Re:Alternative media.

[jandersen]

Here's an interesting article: http://www.freepresshouston.co...

'Free speech' has become a mantra for bullying the people whose opinion is that there are things they don't like and don't want to see; but that in itself becomes a kind of censorship. Not by the government, but by other groups - and it is extremely easy to bombard websites with updates that drown out opinions that you as a person or group don't like.

Ideally, if all people were honest and genuinely played by the rules of good citizenship etc, free speech would be truly free, but it only takes a small minority of bullies to take that away. Governments in democratic countries don't actually want to limit people's freedom of speech, because when people feel they can let off steam, they are less likely to want to upset things too much. It is the different bullying groups, the extremists, religious or otherwise, who talk the loudest about "freedom" and constitutional right, and they are also the ones who are working the hardest to take that away from the general public.

Re:Alternative media.

[sudon't]

I doubt people who sit and spout racist shit into a camera are doing it for profit.

A lot aren't, but some want to spout racist shit full-time, (and likely have a hard time holding down a job anyway), and there are many others who are less ideological than greedy, and have discovered how remunerative clickbait can be, and what an easy target the Right is. Advertising dollars make this possible. That's how we ended up with all this fake news.

I get why many advertisers wouldn't want to be associated with this dreck but, and you can ask Anonymous Coward, racist assholes buy stuff, too. Luckily, it's still a small market.

Re:Alternative media.

[I'm New Around Here]

There's ads on youtube?

Re:Alternative media.

[ganjadude]

no he doesnt. lets stop with the hyperbole. white nationalists hate milo, and he hates them right back

Re: Alternative media.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Removing racist opinions is a violation of the first amendment.

You fail.

The First Amendment applies to the government restricting or suppressing free speech.

A private entity like Google/Youtube has no such obligation whatsoever. They're free to disallow comments or content for whatever reason(s) they want.

Get a copy of the constitution and read it. Or have someone read it to you, you dipshit.

Re: Alternative media.

[ShanghaiBill]

That generally means that the content creator can't earn revenue through YouTube any more

Unlikely. Some companies care about their "family" image, and will not want their ads associated with offensive content. Other advertisers don't care so much. So the obvious solution for Google is to offer a more expensive premium ad platform that excludes offensive videos, while offering a lower priced platform for companies that are more tolerant, and an even cheaper platform for those that actually want to target that audience.

The market will fix this. Disney will pay slightly more for ads, while Breitbart News gets a discount.

Re: Alternative media.

[misexistentialist]

You aren't understanding that governments are pressuring the advertisers because they want certain political speech censored. The governments don't have the legal authority to control people's thoughts, especially people in other countries, but government's regulation of business allows it to control all mass communication. And the demonetization is just one step, they are also threatening to fine Youtube if certain videos aren't removed

Re: Alternative media.

[MightyMartian]

Do you have some actual evidence for this, because on the face of it, it looks like a conspiracy theory.

Re:Alternative media.

[sexconker]

Please list 3 pieces of bullshit he has spouted off.

I don't know who this guy is beyond somebody that the left really, really hates. That makes me think he tells the truth and people cry about it because facts make them uncomfortable.

Re:Alternative media.

[Mashiki]

Fun things: He never fabricated any posts from her. He posted what he found online(which is why you always verify the source). He never encouraged his "legions of adolescent cranks" to attack her. She did however encourage her followers to attack him and other people in the past. She did and has posted racist material, directed at whites numerous times in the past. What's the difference though? Well she's black, and she's female. That seems to be the only difference. When someone posted her racist garbage on their own twitter feed as a quote, can you guess what happened? That's right, they were temporarily banned.

Re:Alternative media.

[ncc74656]

So when [Milo] was fabricating Twitter posts from Leslie Jones

[citation needed...reputable sources only, please]

Re:Alternative media.

[sonamchauhan]

Yeah, 100% spot on. The typical YouTube content creator is not going to miss their monthly $12.95 Google check for 200,000 views (warning: made up numbers).

The point this really drives home is video ads are asymmetric. Youtube's harvest of 'viewer attention' is huge (to the order of billions of dollars a year in value). Only some of this benefits advertisers. Of which, Youtube earns a smaller fraction. And its content creators earn the smallest fraction of all.

The perverse outcome is this may end up making distasteful content more palatable. Only because it won't have ads running all over it. So viewers of an extremist spouting off of how the 'other' is sin, and associating with them is wrong, get an ad-free experience that makes them more receptive to such content.

To balance this effect, YouTube needs to run politically neutral 'public service announcement' ads on hot-topic content at the same frequency as ads on its other normal content. Why should only cute kitten and baby videos suffer?

Re: Alternative media.

[ckatko]

First Amendment, yes.

However, Freedom of Speech predates the first amendment. The bill of rights didn't create the freedom of speech, it merely acknowledged it. The ancient Athens in 500 BC were doing just fine with freedom-of-speech before the USA ratified the Bill of Rights.

There is a long-standing precedent that societies that value freedom of speech create are freer, and create more content. Go ahead. Look at the countries with shit protections for speech, and watch how much art they produce. We're all waiting-in-line to grab the next hot Pakistani pop band's tickets!

Places that value freedom of speech flourish. Those that don't, collapse in upon themselves. The law is irrelevant. Values don't exist solely if they are ratified in law.

Re: Alternative media.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I agree with what you said, but that doesn't invalidate my point at all.

Of course we should value places and institutions that uphold free speech, but the fact is that a private business has no obligation to do so. If they want to be authoritarian corporatists, that's their right. I disagree with it, but I doubt they'd care what I think.

Re:Alternative media.

[maynard]

You can always voluntarily demonetize and say anything you want (that fit legal bounds and are within the terms of service).

Google is a de-facto monopoly on search and video dissemination. So I think there's a reasonable argument to be made if Google impacts search results based on 'objectionable' content. But when their clients - advertisers - say, 'I don't want to pay to see my ad on that channel / content', it doesn't matter if it's hate speech or football talk. The whole point is to target ads at likely buyers. And maybe Pepsi marketing has determined the neo-nazi market isn't worth the trouble. In which case, they get to make that call. And if Google can't meet that customer need, maybe it makes sense for Pepsi to give Google the finger and yank their ads.

I mean, we used to call that a 'free market'. But when you see alt-right wingers whining on about their losing their free speech rights on a corporate platform they don't own, it seems these days things are topsy-turvy. You know, up is down, black is white, left is right.

Re:Alternative media.

[serviscope_minor]

He never fabricated any posts from her.

Either way it's libel. Spreading the rumour is every bit as bad as creating it.

Re:Alternative media.

[jandersen]

'Free speech' has become a mantra for bullying the people whose opinion is that there are things they don't like and don't want anyone else to see

Fixed that for you, HTH HAND

You don't really get it, do you? If you are to have free speech, then so must everybody else; but there are people - like you, I suspect - who think it is OK to carry out their own censorship in the form of harrasment, botting, DDOSing, flooding social media with noise, or as you try in your own, feeble way, by childishly ridiculing the well thought out opinions that you happen to not like or understand. You've run out of arguments, and all you can muster is a mindless howling concert.

Re: Alternative media.

[shanen]

Well, his strong claim may have been incorrect in that sense, but I'm pretty sure that your claim is also incorrect. The trick is that they have to make some argument that the public interest is served by requiring the private businesses to respect people's Constitutional rights. Separate but equal? Remember? We went through all of this back in the '50s and '60s, so why are we still squabbling about it?

Perhaps more significantly, the government can pass laws or impose regulations that have restrictive effects on certain kinds of speech. I don't care how private you think your entity is, if you collect and distribute such speech as child pornography, you're going to get the heck regulated out of you. With my hearty endorsement, much as I approve of freedom of speech (which is NOT the same as freedom, though there are important relationships).

I'm afraid I suspect you [4145623] of being another libertarian confused about what freedom actually means. The presence of real-world constraints does not eliminate freedom, but rather they are part of the "meaningful" part of my sig equation.

Re: Alternative media.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm afraid I suspect you [4145623] of being another libertarian confused about what freedom actually means.

Lol, I'm about as far from libertarian as you can get. The whole idea of libertarianism is idiotic and unworkable, and I've said so many, many times here.

Re:Alternative media.

[ganjadude]

except for he NEVER did that....

Re:Alternative media.

[ganjadude]

no...its not

Re:Alternative media.

[Mashiki]

Either way it's libel. Spreading the rumour is every bit as bad as creating it.

No it's not. Libel requires the intent, and proof of harm. It also requires several other standards which it would fail on even by the lax standards of the UK.

Re:Alternative media.

[serviscope_minor]

no...its not

Yeah... it is.

Re: Alternative media.

[minstrelmike]

I doubt they would shut it down, it's just too valuable.

Your logic is lacking. The "value" in uToob is the ability to sell advertising. If no advertisers want to spend money, then there is no value to be found, and no dollars to support the uploading of 400 hours of video per minute. That's kind of the point of the whole situation.

Re:Alternative media.

[MercTech]

I can see that shopping list of companies pulling adverts from YouTube. After all, most of them are companies that have been slam-dunked for regressive political support and anti employee policies on YouTube videos for quite a while.

Having advertising seemingly randomly assigned to videos does make for some hilarious juxtapositions... Like a Chevrolet Truck commercial that played on a video of the CEO of GM stating that now 7 out of 10 Chevrolets are made in China.

Re: Alternative media.

[MercTech]

Freedom from censorship by government is a right. Freedom from censorship in a social setting is a U.S. cultural meme that gets many people angry when it is trampled on. Corporations that try to squash free speech outside of their own workplace often show fiscal losses when it becomes public knowledge. When you denigrate the cultural values of your customer base; you pay... often you pay big.

Re: Alternative media.

[beastofburdon]

So was Watergate, until we found out that it was true. The government already has complete narrative control over news organizations within the US, the UK has it in their country too, this is just the next logical step for them. When they find a place which allows any narrative to be discussed it must be destroyed or controlled.

Re:Alternative media.

[erapert]

It's "Free Speech" not "Free from hearing things I don't like"
Why? Because there's no way to objectively determine what's good and what's bad to say or hear.
So rather than potentially lose all of our civilization to censorship and pearl clutching we choose to pay the price of hearing idiots speak-- it's assumed that those who aren't fools can tell the difference between stupidity and ideas of importance.

Re: Alternative media.

[shanen]

Okay, my apologies, but I was having trouble framing the context of your prior comment. It sounded like you were taking one of their absolute positions based on their confusion about what freedom means.

Not that I'm a linguist, but I suspect that a lot of the problem involves ambiguities in the English language around the many senses of "free". Again, not that I'm fluent, but insofar as I understand Japanese the way they use separate words for the various senses of "free" makes a lot of sense to me. (Going beyond that, I'm beginning to speculate on how the confusing modal verbs of English are related to similar confusions created by the modal confusions in Japanese. Perhaps everyone is trying to be as "proper" in a normative sense as their respective languages will permit?)

Re: Alternative media.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

It sounded like you were taking one of their absolute positions based on their confusion about what freedom means.

I probably should have been more clear. Sometimes it's hard to express things unambiguously and dashing off a reply like I did is fraught with the chance for lots of possible interpretations

For the record, I am not and never will be a libertarian. The whole libertarian idea is embarrassingly silly and unworkable. It fails on so many levels that I could write a 5-volume set on it.

The problem most libertarians have is they never think that they'll be the ones getting fucked over by their wet dream of little or no regulation.

It's never their wife or their child who'll die from some untested medication or contaminated food or an unsafe electrical appliance. They always think that it'll always be the other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Market will punish that company and force them out of business, so they'll be safe.

Re: Alternative media.

[ArmoredDragon]

I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them.

And you have no reading comprehension, because I didn't say they were removing anything. Please read my post again.

Re:Alternative media.

[ganjadude]

clearly you have no idea how libel works. nothing milo has done reaches that level

Re:Alternative media.

[serviscope_minor]

clearly you have no idea how libel works. nothing milo has done reaches that level

Passing on defamatory things about someone, yeah that's libel.

What videos exactly?

[elrous0]

I've yet to see a single link to one of these "hate videos" that supposedly has these companies so pissed. While I've no doubt that there are hateful videos on Youtube (there are pretty much ALL KINDS of video on Youtube), are they actually citing specific videos here, or just reacting to vague reports that that OMG! there may be some assholes on Youtube (clutch the pearls!!)?

Re:What videos exactly?

[wvmarle]

Or an excuse to pull out of a failing venture?

The few online ads that make it through to me are usually totally irrelevant - except those that come with Google's search results as those are based on my location and current interest, i.e. what I happen to search for. The rest is mostly adblocked to begin with.

Also I have seen relevant ads on other sites - where the site itself sold the ads, to advertisers directly related to the topic at hand (a recycling site posting banner ads of recycling companies).Those were not adblocked, in part for not being part of an ad network so they fell off the radar. Not intrusive and relevant ads, that's totally fine with me.

So it sounds like Internet advertising has to go back to basics. Sites themselves selling ads to advertisers instead of pulling in random ads. Advertisers themselves looking for relevant places to show their ads, instead of having their ads plastered over random sites. At the same time those failing ad networks can stop their invasive tracking and profiling, as it's quite obvious that doesn't work either.

Re:What videos exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

For starters, here's an entire channel called Dindu Nuffins with nothing but racist videos.

There are video series like Chimpout! episode 2 (and 1, 3, 4, etc.) which encourage such insightful dialogue as:

"IF ANY MARSHAL WANTS TO COME DIE FOR A JEW, THEN COMEOVER AND TELL ME TO GO TO YOUR COURT OR SOMETHING EQUALLY AS STUPID. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS RHESUS MONKEY BLOOD RITUAL. THE NEGRO GRAVEN IMAGE AND THE ALBINO JEW GRAVEN IMAGE NEGRO CAN TAKE THEIR BLOOD DRINKING ELSE WHERRE."

There are thousands of apparent one-off videos like You stupid fucking n-ggers!

Hatred is all over YouTube, just as it's all over the internet in general. I imagine the advertisers are responding to the phenomenon at large, and not to specific videos or artists, otherwise they could just request to have their ads pulled from those specific channels. (I have no idea whether or not there were ever ads running on the links above, I don't see YouTube ads thanks to uBlock.)

Re:What videos exactly?

[Dutch Gun]

Perhaps also an effort to encourage Google to come back and offer these advertisers some discounted rates? It's unlikely that these advertisers will stay away for long. But why not pull out of a deal temporarily and see if things look more favorable for the next contract?

I don't think there's a lot of love for the dominant position Google has in internet advertising, so of course other companies will take any opportunity they can get to stick it too them just a bit. This just seems like an excuse to do that.

Re:What videos exactly?

[mysidia]

Perhaps also an effort to encourage Google to come back and offer these advertisers some discounted rates?

Chances are Google won't need to. I would bet that other companies will continue to buy those ad slots, regardless of what Walmart may do, now it may be true that the winning bids for those ads will be lower as a result of less competition from Walmart, etc, But this is all at Walmart's loss.

Re:What videos exactly?

[stephanruby]

The first article cites these examples

Ads for Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Toyota, Dish Network, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Geico unit and Google's own YouTube Red subscription service appeared on racist videos with the slur "n-----" in the title as of Thursday night. Those ads ran before two videos that dub a racist song over videos of former first lady Michelle Obama or Chicago rapper Chief Keef. The videos, posted by the same account, have been viewed more than 425,000 times and 260,000 times, respectively.

Another video titled "Black people in their natural habitat," with a racial slur in the description, played monkey noises over footage of black men in prison and images of black civil-rights leaders Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Google showed ads for Amazon, Microsoft and GM's Chevrolet unit before or during that video.

If it is really true that uploaders have used the "n" word and other racial slurs either in the video title or in the video description, then Google could easily prevent ads from playing over those videos.

Re:What videos exactly?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

People rarely have a lot of love for the party in the position to charge them more; but the fact that a 'search company' apparently can't make any useful promises regarding where your ads will end up is probably not helping their position on this one.

Even in situations where everything is pretty banal; advertisers generally want some targeting of the impressions they are paying for to the audience they are trying to reach. If Google can't demonstrate an ability to avoid certain contexts on request, why would an advertiser believe that they are any more accurate or honest when it comes to targeting certain audiences?

Re:What videos exactly?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's almost like Google has a search problem on their hands.

Re:What videos exactly?

[freeze128]

Advertisers should object to sponsoring STUPID videos, not just hateful ones. They have the ability to empower thoughtful, informative, educational, and enriching videos, yet they actually choose to sponsor some of the DUMBEST POSTERS on YouTube. Don't make millionaires out of idiots who post "React" videos. Make the world better by sponsoring TED videos.

Re:What videos exactly?

[ogdenk]

Do you have a vested interested in traditional media conglomerates? If they get the eyeballs, why shouldn't they get their share of the revenue? Funding these people keeps them producing videos which gets them millions of eyeballs which gets advertisers business.

Re:What videos exactly?

[Mashiki]

Guess that's why they're also demonetizing anti-racism videos too right? Their definition of "not advertiser friendly" seems to be: "We're gonna jam our face into the politics of the day, because someone here feels uncomfortable with the subject matter."

Re:What videos exactly?

[ArmoredDragon]

There are thousands of apparent one-off videos like You stupid fucking n-ggers! [youtube.com]

I don't think that particular one is a good example of being "hate" (where hate means racism.) Sure, it treads on thin ice, and probably isn't something you'd want to place any ads on, but it sits more on the side of discourse. I suppose you could call it uncivil discourse.

And then there's this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:What videos exactly?

[Dutch Gun]

Hmm, not sure I agree. Walmart is a retail store, and won't really care whether they're advertising on YouTube or not. There are plenty of other advertisement avenues for them.

However, Google's billions are made almost *entirely* from online advertising. I'm not saying they'll necessarily take a significant hit from this, but you can bet that this is *much* more concerning to them, as it's affecting the reputation of their most important service, financially speaking. I'd bet we'll see some sort of proactive response from them concerning this fairly shortly. There's no way they're going to risk their primary revenue source.

Re:What videos exactly?

[tinkerton]

Youtube is just adapting to make what they publish generally more suitable for ads. The relevant model here seems to be Edward Herman's 'Propaganda Model' ,
which is generally considered to be about news and claims that news media are mainly following business logic: they adapt to get along with their advertizers, with government sources, with powerful players that could harm them. The result is that media are very compliant with the dominant powers and that journalists are selected for how well they fit into that system.
  With youtube it's kinda obvious because they don't have any high principles to uphold but news media deny it claiming they're above all that.

Re:What videos exactly?

[AmiMoJo]

The advertisers don't want to police it themselves, checking individual channels for suitability. They want it to be like TV, where they say "we want X minutes/day, and only during family-friendly programming" and the network does the rest. That's kind of the whole point about how YouTube advertising works - Google has massive analytics and targeting capability which obviously they don't want to share with anyone, so you just get to select your parameters and they do the rest.

Re:What videos exactly?

[AmiMoJo]

The few online ads that make it through to me are usually totally irrelevant

So, slightly better than most other forms of advertising then... Like TV and billboards which are usually totally irrelevant. Also remember that AdBlock makes the tracking/profiling less effective so you are probably not getting typical results. People without ad blocking find ads creepily following them around the web and stuff like that.

All they really care about is that their ads don't appear next to overtly racist content, stuff that uses the n-word and is thus easy for journalists to find.

Re:What videos exactly?

[inking]

Since it's the WSJ reporting it, they probably mean PewDiePie.

Re:What videos exactly?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Right? YouTube seems to always only (for me anyway) play the exact same ad over and over, or a small group of ads. I'm assuming these companies get some type of "report" from Youtube with a list of what videos their ads are playing next to, or else how would they even know?

Re:What videos exactly?

[phantomfive]

It could be because you never typed "n*****" into the youtube search bar. The article is surprisingly good and has quite a number of examples:

Ads for Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Toyota, Dish Network, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Geico unit and Google's own YouTube Red subscription service appeared on racist videos with the slur "n-----" in the title as of Thursday night.

Another video titled "Black people in their natural habitat," with a racial slur in the description, played monkey noises over footage of black men in prison and images of black civil-rights leaders Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Google showed ads for Amazon, Microsoft and GM's Chevrolet unit before or during that video.

Google showed ads for PepsiCo's Quaker Foods unit, Microsoft's Minecraft videogame and FX Networks' "Fargo" on a 15-minute video titled "EXPOSING THE JEWISH LIES." The video showed a sermon from Steven Anderson, the founder of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Arizona, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed a hate group for promoting views that the Holocaust was a hoax and gay people should be killed.

Part of the reason the companies are pulling support could be because they want to negotiate a better deal on advertising costs. Incidentally I couldn't post this until I starred out the n-word in my post, apparently Slashdot censors that.

Re:What videos exactly?

[phantomfive]

They should use ElasticSearch.

Re:What videos exactly?

[misexistentialist]

why now? It's because of the elite's organized importation of people from the 3rd world, and the need to suppress the native peoples' defense. Convenient to say that blacks and Jews need to be protected when they are irrelevant

Re:What videos exactly?

[ausekilis]

I'd be curious how this can be extended. If these assorted hate-filled or otherwise obscene channels that YouTube sells advertising space for mean those big advertisers pull funding, how much further does it need to go before we start seeing real change in advertising policies?

How many racists/bigots do we need searching for Amazon Prime/Downy soap/Mickey Mouse then the latest KKK propaganda before Google is forced to re-think their targeted advertising?

Lets face it, once the 500lb gorilla changes course, others will follow.

Re:What videos exactly?

[ArmoredDragon]

No shit.

Re:Why the media blitz over this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brands don't have morals to stand up for in the first place, but they do have bottom lines to protect. And armies of idiot snowflakes threatening to boycott them for being inadvertently proximal to opinions they disagree with is an obvious, though probably false, threat to their sales.

This is how censorship works in America.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of that pesky first amendment, the actual government can't create Ministries of Truth to arbitrate reality like some European countries are trying to do (not to mention that the people everyone wants to censor currently control all branches of government). Luckily though, the wonders of unchecked free market capitalism have created an environment where the most notorious thoughcriminals rely on advertising revenue to survive financially, and two private companies with no legal responsibilities toward free speech and a track record of bowing to mob pressure and/or their own political agendas now have a near-monopoly on ad sales.

Re:This is how censorship works in America.

[serviscope_minor]

Censorship: n. Where someone gives you a free platform to promote your views but won't actually pay you.

Crikey you're thin skinned if you think someone not paying you to put up videos is censorship. That's all that's happening here: YouTube is stopping them being paid advertising revenue.

Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe?

[mschwanke97402]

So, though it is antithetical ti Google's business model, they could actually hire human reviewers. I am not suggesting they censor content, just accurately categorize it so advertisers and viewers could avoid the crap they don't want to support or view. Before you say it, it could be done. It might take 20,000 employees or so but it could be done.

Re:Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe?

[93 Escort Wagon]

So, though it is antithetical ti Google's business model, they could actually hire human reviewers.

If that becomes the case, I'm sure Google will be in front of congress again - pleading for more H1-Bs.

Re:Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe?

[eWarz]

#freedomofspeech.

Re:Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe?

[GNious]

Seem to recall articles here on /. about Google's reviewers having to look at so much shit, they basically broke down mentally within a year - ignoring the human costs, that's a very large turn-over if you need to hire and train 20.000 new people yearly.

Re:Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe?

[drinkypoo]

Seem to recall articles here on /. about Google's reviewers having to look at so much shit, they basically broke down mentally within a year

There must be a subset of the 4chan-esque crowd which will do the job they are paid to do faithfully in spite of being shitlords. Hire them, their eyeballs can withstand anything.

Re:Why the media blitz over this?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're all virtue signaling because that's what their idiotic marketers/officers who graduated from sjw.edu think they must do. All they really need to do is say "we like people who like our products" and leave it at that. The moment they take a position on contentious issues they lose market share because they're going to alienate some group of people who were perhaps buying their stuff.

Let them all leave...

[eWarz]

It just lowers my bid. Amazing how well competition works.

It's "too hard to fix"

[93 Escort Wagon]

Until it starts costing them money, at least. Once that starts happening, then I'm sure Google will suddenly start finding ways to keep advertisers' ads off of certain videos / channels.

Facebook did more or less the same thing, as I recall. A fix is always unfeasible until not having that fix starts costing them dollars...

Re:It's "too hard to fix"

[lewistown]

Google already does this through demonetization, and those systems are being constantly improved upon. It's is a tough problem though, lots of content may disappear if creators can't get an income for the videos they produce, and that could lead to knock-on effects where even unaffected users and creators decide to leave the platform.

Re:There are ads on YT?

[wateringcan]

We get it; you use adblock.

But Dissent is Now HATE

[Kunedog]

Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.

Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.

The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.

A popular tranny just had two of her YT videos demonitized, one that criticized Islam, and another that criticized feminism:
https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWh...

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[AmiMoJo]

And refusing to give you a platform is now genocide.

Don't get me wrong, YouTube has fucked up royally here, but your claims are laughable because I can still go to YouTube right this second and watch neo-Nazis spouting off, or Carl of Swindon ranting about feminazis, or The Golden One living out his liberal murder fantasies in video games, and all still monetized.

It's obvious to anyone with a level head that YouTube is just incompetent. You can't attribute any political or philosophical or moral motivation to their actions, because they are too inconsistent to be rational.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

And refusing to give you a platform is now genocide.

Who is claiming that? Oh, you, in typical strawman fashion.

Don't get me wrong, YouTube has fucked up royally here, but your claims are laughable because I can still go to YouTube right this second and watch neo-Nazis spouting off, or Carl of Swindon ranting about feminazis, or The Golden One living out his liberal murder fantasies in video games, and all still monetized.

How does that refute what is desired by the leftist agitators versus what YouTube is actually doing? The boycott came about because YouTube didn't sufficiently turn itself into a "safe space".

It's obvious to anyone with a level head that YouTube is just incompetent. You can't attribute any political or philosophical or moral motivation to their actions, because they are too inconsistent to be rational.

It's obvious to anybody who's been paying attention that the left has been hysterically ramping up their cries about "hate speech" and leveling it at anybody who opposes their ideological positions.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

There is no bug push from "leftist agitators" to censor YouTube

Bullshit. It's the leftist mainstream media that lumps together Islamic terrorists with "far-right" groups, yet never talk about "far-left" groups. It's also the left that's been hell bent on "deplatforming" the right the past several years.

On top of that, there has been a huge amount of criticism on social media from the left because what Youtube has done is indiscriminate and affects many non-controversial videos (unless you consider make-up tips for trans women to be a problem)

Yes, they are only concerned when they get caught up in the net. That doesn't mean they aren't for the net. Just so long as it only applies to "hateful" channels, that is, those on the right.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[peragrin]

Yet when the haters on the right does the exact same thing. It is okay?

Let's put it this way when Obama was putting out Obamacare did he threaten every single democrat who voted no? That is what Trump just did to republiacans. He threatened their jobs, he threatened their families if they didn't do what he told them to do.

Now which side is dangerous, which side is vengeful? It isn't that Lettie terrorists don't exist but it is significantly smaller than rightie terrorists.

Also remember every single Islamic terrorists is a conservative. They are all right wing. They all want theirs at over science. Now which American party also wants religion over science?

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[justthinkit]

YouTube is just incompetent

Right, watching and listening to 150 hours of new content uploaded every hour should be easy peasy.

Just imagine the cost of doing this. Imagine how problematic this is. The people forced/choosing to do this are subjecting themselves to abuse, at some point or continuously.

And how does one police/supervise the "reviewers"? Why, you need another person to listen to the same stuff to make sure, right?

Sounds like an impossible assignment to me.

The way I would handle it is to tell advertisers "You guys listen to the popular/monetized channels for us and if YOU find anything you don't like, let us know."

Notice how that doesn't involve Google?

Re: But Dissent is Now HATE

[drinkypoo]

It's not the words that are being targetted, it's the philosophies.

Acceptance of abuse is not tolerance. It's just being abused.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[drinkypoo]

Right, watching and listening to 150 hours of new content uploaded every hour should be easy peasy.

If your argument is that Google cannot afford to hire 150-200 additional employees, it's a pretty lousy argument.

And how does one police/supervise the "reviewers"? Why, you need another person to listen to the same stuff to make sure, right?

Your failure is of imagination. No, no you don't. You let the community flag your misses. Just getting the vast majority of them would do the job.

Sounds like an impossible assignment to me.

That's because you're being disingenuous. Or dumb.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

Yet when the haters on the right does the exact same thing. It is okay?

Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?

Let's put it this way when Obama was putting out Obamacare did he threaten every single democrat who voted no?

What does that have to do with free speech on gigantic platforms like YouTube?

Now which side is dangerous, which side is vengeful?

Let's see, who is committing the violence and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.

Also remember every single Islamic terrorists is a conservative. They are all right wing. They all want theirs at over science. Now which American party also wants religion over science?

Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading women marches?

The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[serviscope_minor]

It's the leftist mainstream media that lumps together Islamic terrorists with "far-right" groups, ye

No you numpty, this is all about mega corps not wanting their adverts to appear alongside (and give money to) groups/videos that they think are sufficiently misaligned with their brand. You know what? Neither Islamic terrorism nor neo Nazism is aligned with coca-coal's carefully curated corporate image.

But sure blame teh leftist libruhls.

Oh and also the British government. You know that bunch of rampant lefties run by Theresa May.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[sexconker]

Why would you need to watch or listen to 150 hours of new content?

A dozen unpaid interns can adequately police all videos for advertisers.

1: A video doesn't have ads on it for the first 50,000 views. Adjust to the 98th or whatever percentile Google feels is worth losing ad revenue over vs. not hiring more people. (Even unpaid interns cost money.)

2: Once a video crawls out of the sewer and hits 50,000 views, or whatever magic number you have decided upon, toss it into a reviewer queue.

3: An unpaid intern is automatically assigned the video, watches it at 1.5x speed, and determines if it will make special snowflakes cry, or whatever it is that advertisers are concerned about.

4: The unpaid intern flags it for a handful of categories/companies that should be blocked from having ads on it, then approves it for ads. No ads from gay companies, no ads from Disney (Disney can pay extra $$$ to get elevated to an entire category), no ads from sissy little shits who want a "family friendly" image, whatever.

5: Google's ad system injects ads as usual, with an additional search clause to not select ads for categories that are banned on that video.

Your mistake is that you think you have to watch all of the content. You don't. You need to watch all of the content you run ads on. Since the vast majority of content on YouTube goes unseen except by the uploader and a handful of people, you can skip ads entirely for those videos and not lose any meaningful revenue. You just need to target ads that have lots of views to maintain your revenue. And you could even have some viewer go into ad debt if they watch a lot of monetized, low-view (and thus ad-free) videos. Simple show them ads more frequently when they do watch videos with ads until they catch up.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[MightyMartian]

I'm never sure whether the advocates of Neo-Nazis getting money from Youtube are just very anal individuals who have bought into the notion that First Amendment protections ought to apply to communications on private platforms, or are Neo-Nazis themselves. I think for the most part we're dealing with Aspies and similar types who have incredibly rigid world views and are cognitively incapable of seeing that a company like Google ultimately has to serve its customers (the advertisers) in the way that they want, or at least accommodate their concerns, although I'm sure the Neo-Nazis aren't happy either.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[aliquis]

And refusing to give you a platform is now genocide.

Maybe complicity / not allow people to talk against it. It depends on the purpose I guess.

The politics which bring others here and deny our people and culture however IS genocide. But even if we were allowed to speak out about it it would still be. So it's not like that chances anything. Even if the majority of the voters voted for it it would still be it. Heck, here in Sweden the normal word for suicide would be "sjlvmord" as in self-murder.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

That's because those two groups have similar goals and use similar methods in pursuit of the "pure" society of like-minded psychopaths that they masturbate furiously to in the privacy of their basements.

Critiquing Islam can get you labeled "far-right" and "neo-Nazi", while the left has Sharia apologizers leading women's marchers and thugs trying to shut down free speech, while embracing Islamic immigration.

Or are Dylan Roof and Timothy McVeigh just a couple of courageous "freedom fighters" in your twisted little world?

I'm not defending anybody of that ilk.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

Calling everybody who disagrees with "progressive" positions a neo-Nazi is not an argument.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

No you numpty, this is all about mega corps not wanting their adverts to appear alongside (and give money to) groups/videos that they think are sufficiently misaligned with their brand.

Because the leftist press is making a point to smear the political right by lumping them in with Islamic terrorists, and then try to hang it on corporations, "numpty".

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[MightyMartian]

Where did I call everyone who disagrees with Progressive positions a Neo-nazi?

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places?

I don't see the right trying to get BLM kicked off YouTube, or preventing them from giving speeches at colleges, etc.

Also, case in point, here, by a user named Raenex. Who will never look at the right's actions.

I looked. I condemn violence. However, Muslims are like 1% of the American population, but their attacks our roughly on par with American militias, according to your source (counting, of course, after 9/11): "In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead."

But let's bring in more of this hateful ideology! I'm sure we can ratchet up the Islamic body count in no time!

Which political party tries to convince us that Islam is a material threat?

Islam has bloody borders:

"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

By claiming I'm advocating neo-Nazis getting money from YouTube, when I said at the very beginning, "It's obvious to anybody who's been paying attention that the left has been hysterically ramping up their cries about "hate speech" and leveling it at anybody who opposes their ideological positions."

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[kevinwal]

Nah, Obama aimed his shots against republicans.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[kevinwal]

The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Re: But Dissent is Now HATE

[jabuzz]

This all started when the British government pulled adverts from YouTube because they where appearing alongside videos that where in support of proscribed groups (that has a very specific meaning within UK law Google it if you don't understand). The British government can in no way be described as lefty anything. Then British companies pulled adverts for the same reasons.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[MrLint]

Not irony, you made an attempt at sarcasm.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

while the left has Sharia apologizers leading women's marchers and thugs trying to shut down free speech

Bullshit.

Sure, there are whackos of every stripe and type getting their 2 minutes of fame and air time, but 99.99999 percent of the left is NOT supporting sharia in any way, shape, or form. If you really believe they are, stop watching FOX News for a few minutes and let your head clear.

The vast, vast majority of liberals DO NOT support any sharia stuff, period. Stop making boogeymen where there are none.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[lgw]

Wait, haven't you two had this exact same argument before here? Don't respond to AmiMoJo's trolling - he says the same shit every time the subject comes up, and somehow the trollbait always works.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[lgw]

Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.

Hey, Kunedog, if by MSM you mean folks like CNN and the NYT, please stop describing them that way. They've fallen out of the mainstream - they're the old-school media now. Top-tier YouTubers and bloggers have more sibscribers and more views than the biggest newspapers or CNN. MSNBC and most newspapers have less reach than hundreds of second-tier bloggers and YouTubers.

Newspapers and Cable news channels are quickly becoming "something old people pay attention to", and the balance of power has already shifted to new media. In a generation the old-school media will be a quaint curiosity, like printed books.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[quantaman]

Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.

Disagreement is now harrassment.

Mockery is now hate speech.

Offense is now trauma.

Criticism is now abuse.

Compelling criticism is now violence.

Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.

Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.

The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.

A popular tranny just had two of her YT videos demonitized, one that criticized Islam, and another that criticized feminism:

https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWh...

Is there a fringe group on the left that is guilty of the things you allege? Of course, you can find crazies in any movement.

But it's not the significant problem you suggest, and that's not what we're talking about here.

This story is about really unambiguously racist videos and the companies who don't want their ads appearing in conjunction with those videos, the only surprising thing is that Google made this screw-up in the first place.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[serviscope_minor]

The corporations pulled their advertising, because they don't like the image of giving money to terrorists, neo Nazis or people who talk in the cinema. This had nothing to do with teh leftist libruhls.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

So I'm supposed to care that you pretend you don't see it?

You can cite it or shut it. It's not my job to back up your claims. But if all you're talking about is criticism, and not trying to remove them from YouTube or prevent them from speaking at places like colleges, it ain't the same, because that's the topic under discussion.

Notice how you don't say you condemn right-wing violence. You won't even condemn right-wing deceits and frauds.

You're a real idiot. I condemn left-wing and right-wing violence. I was responding to the articles which you posted about right-wing violence, so I didn't specify right-wing, because it was obvious.

Do you want to hear about them before 9/11?

Still wouldn't come close to the body count of 9/11 by the Islamic attack, now would it?

Oh yes, here you go, making your accusation that somebody is intentionally importing violence and hate?

Islam is a hateful and violent ideology, and since we are willingly allowing Muslims to immigrate, and even being cajoled to allow more, then yes.

Oh, I can dump text too:

Dump it all you want, that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Jesus, as described in the Gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.

That's why Islam remains the most violent, expansionist, and authoritarian religion in the world today. That's why you can have "Piss Christ" displays in the United States, and nobody gets killed, but if you draw cartoons of Muhammad, you are attacked with guns, despite Christians being 70% of the population and Muslims only 1%.

Re: But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

The British government can in no way be described as lefty anything.

When it comes to criticizing Islam, the British government is lefty, or establishment left/right, since this goes back to Bush and "religion of peace".

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

Bullshit. Sure, there are whackos of every stripe and type getting their 2 minutes of fame and air time, but 99.99999 percent of the left is NOT supporting sharia in any way, shape, or form. If you really believe they are, stop watching FOX News for a few minutes and let your head clear.

Can you explain this, then? Funny how they made sure to exclude women who were pro-life, but at the front and center included a Sharia-loving, Islam apologizing, hijab-wearing woman.

Time to open your eyes. The left is filled with useful idiots.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

If you don't respond, his bullshit gets modded up and goes unchallenged. Sorry, but as tiresome as it is, it must be challenged. And I don't consider it trolling, just shitty politics and poor arguments.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

I did. You denied seeing it.

No, that's just your imagination. This is all you wrote: "On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places? Just look for all the hand-wringing over "BLM" and "Anti-Trump" riots, against "Planned Parenthood", all the "Birther" claims, and you''ll find it."

That's not a citation of the right trying to get BLM get kicked off of YouTube or stopped from speaking at colleges. Learn what a citation is. Link to something concrete. Here's an example of a citation where the authoritarian left shut down the free speech of a speaker on the right.

I noted that you initially said nothing to specifically identify, acknowledge, and condemn right-wing violence

And you're still an idiot. I was responding directly to articles you referenced, said I looked, and condemned the violence. If you want to pretend I wasn't talking about right-wing violence then that's on you.

Oh? You were trying to make it a comparative, rather than asking for observations about it chronologically? Why?

Because my point was that the original comparison was deliberately chosen after 9/11. And even then the numbers are still comparable, despite that Muslims are only about 1% of the American population.

That's what you tell yourself. Unfortunately for you, the writers of the Constitution realized what harvest would come of such beliefs.

That Islam is a hateful ideology is a matter of record, based on the scriptures, preaching, history, and practices shown throughout the world today. Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens wishing to immigrate here, and legally, both in law and in precedence, we as a nation have complete discretion in this matter. It will be settled after Gorsuch is seated and the Supreme Court overrules the activist judges that stopped Trump's constitutionally legal executive actions.

the way to address a problem is not exclusion, but suasion, instead

We can "suade" them over in their own countries instead of inviting a hateful ideology into ours. It used to be that Muslims invaded to take over a country. Now we just invite them in masses as "refugees".

Neither Jesus nor Muhammed are alive today, so their immigration status is moot. You might as well be lying about Nikolaos of Myra.

Burying you head in the sand doesn't change the fundamental roots of the religion and how people act on it today. All it does is make you a useful idiot to those following in the teachings and path of Islam and its warlord prophet Muhammad.

Oh my, except...you just brought up another example of the right's attempts at censorship and violence. I'm glad they're relatively incompetent at acting on their brutality, but I won't deny it exists.

So not a single example of violence within the United States, despite Christians being 70% of the population, over a display of Christ in a jar of piss, but there was attempted murder with a gun over some drawings of Muhammad, despite Muslims being only 1% of the population.

And of course, the Piss Christ guy was lauded by the elitists left, while the defenders of free speech were villainized for daring to break a Muslim taboo. *golf clap*

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Can you explain this, then?

No, I wouldn't even try to begin to explain anything found on the pages of Breitbart.

-

The left is filled with useful idiots.

And so is the right, my friend. Neither has a corner on idiocy.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

No, I wouldn't even try to begin to explain anything found on the pages of Breitbart.

So the anon pegged your reply exactly. Not that I'm surprised, but you'd think you might try and not be so obvious. Breitbart's article is a record of facts, with many supporting links throughout. You've just got your head in the sand.

And so is the right, my friend. Neither has a corner on idiocy.

When it comes to embracing Islam, the left has it in spades. And you're one of them too, because you deny facts while carrying water for them.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

No imagination there, you just validated my statements, the problem is that you won't look, so you claim not to see it. Hence the impasse.

The impasse is you won't provide a citation in the form of a link, as requested, and as I showed by example for the authoritarian left. You've had no problems supplying plenty of links for other things, so obviously the problem is on your end.

Did you forget that Milo is on the conservative black list now?

So what? That happened before he was torpedoed.

But in case you didn't get it the first time, I'm not terribly impressed that Milo can hire agent provocateurs to create a disruption, but he's on the outs anyway.

Yeah, so Milo committed a felony and hired provocateurs to beat his own followers and burn property. I guess he hired these guys, too, right? You truly are an ass.

Milo's talks have been openly oppressed for a long time, by both faculty, administration, and students. Berkeley was the second time that it became violent (the first time involved a shooting during the talk).

You actually didn't respond directly to any of the articles' information, or show any effort to do anything except twist their content for your own purposes.

I condemned the violence, and all you could do was act stupid enough to say I wasn't condemning right-wing violence. That stupidity is all you.

In fact, there's too much stupidity to be arguing with. I'm three points in, and I'm arguing in circles with sheer pig-headed stupidity. You aren't worth my time, the rest of your post will go unread, and you will get no more responses.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[serviscope_minor]

Can you explain this, then?

Whatever "this" is, it's on Breitbart, so it's about 99% likely to be utter bullshit. Possibly a small kernel of truth wrapped in bullshit. But if you're learning your opinions and, uh, "facts" from Breitbart still then there is no hope for you.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[serviscope_minor]

And determines if it will make special snowflakes cry, or whatever it is that advertisers are concerned about.

Giving money to terrorists is like totally the same things as making special snowflakes cry. You clearly don't approve of not making snowflakes cry. You're also equating not giving money to terrorists to the former---the whole terrorist reason is why Her Majesty's Government pulled ads. Given the chain of reasoning you're displaying, it appears you are taking a pro terrorist stance.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

Whatever "this" is, it's on Breitbart, so it's about 99% likely to be utter bullshit. Possibly a small kernel of truth wrapped in bullshit.

Then prove it. What did they say that was bullshit?

But if you're learning your opinions and, uh, "facts" from Breitbart still then there is no hope for you.

And if you dismiss everything out of ideology, there is no hope for you. The Breitbart article is sourced. It's all fact. The tweets aren't made up, the national recognition from the Whitehouse isn't made up, and her organizational leadership and speech at the Women's March wasn't made up. Even Snopes couldn't manage a half-assed dismissal.

Bury your head in the sand all you want, the truth is out there, and ignoring it is part of the reason Trump got elected.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[serviscope_minor]

Nah, Breitbart is a thoroughly discredited source. If you insist on using discredited sources, you can have no reasonable expectation for people to put effort in to tenting the claims time and time again. You can call it ideology if it pleases you to do so, it doesn't bought me. I suppose you could call not wasting time on things I know to be junk an ideology.

Find and actually credible source, or you're full of it :)

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

Nah, Breitbart is a thoroughly discredited source. [..] Find and actually credible source, or you're full of it :)

I gave you a Snopes source that addressed the topic head on, and did nothing to dispute the story. Did you even click it? Why didn't you respond to it?

The Snopes source also includes references, including to a Time article that says, "She enlisted veteran organizers Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour as national co-chairs with the aim of wrangling one of the largest Inauguration demonstrations in -history--and making it one that brought together activists of all stripes.".

The Tweets are a matter of factual record. So are the other sourced facts. Why does it matter if Breitbart reported on them vs anybody else? What sourced facts do you dispute? None.

Are you that afraid of the truth?

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[serviscope_minor]

I gave you a Snopes source that addressed the topic head on, and did nothing to dispute the story. Did you even click it? Why didn't you respond to it?

Fake news! Fake news! IOW, No you didn't. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

Fake news! Fake news! IOW, No you didn't. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.

Perhaps you should read more carefully. That post is in reply to you, and you replied to that post.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

Is there some reason you're posting as anon now? Or is that not you?

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[erapert]

Whatever "this" is, it's on Breitbart, so it's about 99% likely to be utter bullshit.

Well you just unironically used an ad hominem attack and think that it's valid so I guarantee that 100% of what you have to say is utter bullshit.

Why do they not match ads to intended audience?

[grahammm]

Goog;le already know a lot about the people viewing videos, and presumably each advertiser has a desired demographic for the ad. So why do Google not match the two? Put adverts against the videos which are being viewed by the particular target audience of the advert. This should satisfy both the advertiser, whose ads are being seen by the target demographic, and viewers who will be seeing a greater proportion of relevant ads.

Re:Why do they not match ads to intended audience?

[yes-but-no]

Likely the algorithms are already doing this. Just that you don't want to know the Truth that someone liking your product also likes that hateful thing. So you (as advertiser/big-corp) want to disassociate yourself from that hateful stuff -- it's just hypocrisy.

Re:You'll learn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only APPROVED HATE is allowed.

But of course -- the extreme right loves to point out how private business should be allowed to freely discriminate as long as it's directed at groups they don't like. But when a company don't want to be associated with THEM, well, then they scream consorship

Re:Capitalism

[mtempsch]

I notice progressives use this argument only when such a move supports their goals/viewpoints. More cherry picking hypocrisy from the left.

And the right is quite happy to have companies discriminate against groups they don't approve of - now shoe, meet other foot... I'd say there's enough hypocrisy for a generous serving to all sides.

Re:Why the media blitz over this?

[AHuxley]

Old media likes to pull ads back from social media.
Social media wants to use SJW cover to transform into traditional media online with having a ban/report policy.
The SJW "users" are making the sites safe for TV like media, series, movies globally.

Good! Now they know how it feels!!!!

[Leslie43]

I run several chat forums and every now and then Google changes the rules, one week something is fine, the next it isn't and you're responsible to scrub all that no longer complies. Last time they did this, there was 23 million posts across several chat forums to review or risk losing my Adsense account, to which there is little recourse.

I hope it hurts, I hope it really hurts!

Re:Good! Now they know how it feels!!!!

[dwywit]

Perhaps they should apologise to Drew Curtis (www.fark.com) and send him the advertising revenue they withheld for "inappropriate content".

http://www.fark.com/comments/b...

Yes ! I am using Adblock

[NguyễnHiển]

Becase of using adblock, Youtube is great !

Care to buy ad time on a platform based on random

[_Shorty-dammit]

YT: Care to buy ad time on a platform based on random people uploading videos based on whatever randomness they're into?

Companies: Yes!

YT: OK, thanks!

Companies: Hey! How come these random videos we're advertising over contain all manner of random stuff?!

YT: Um, duh?

Hate videos == PewDiePie

[blind biker]

What is ridiculous is that these holier than thou multinationals call PewDiePie videos "hate videos".

Re:Hate videos == PewDiePie

[bill_mcgonigle]

"I'm boycotting Amazon because Pewdiepie pointed at something!"

Said two people ever.

Battlestar Galactica Quote

[tinkerton]

Someone on here once pointed out a relevant quote from Commander William Adama:

. There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

I think this is the place where diplomats warn that 'there is a risk of us moving in that direction' when they mean to describe the current situation.

Re:Battlestar Galactica Quote

[tinkerton]

Woops, that belongs in the terrifying anti riot vehicle thread.

Re:Battlestar Galactica Quote

[tinkerton]

My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army. Your quote doesn't. My quote is directly relevant for the subject of militarization of the police.
There's this dilemma where either someone appears smart by saying something that sounds clever, or make a simple and clear statement but not be taken seriously. I tried to make this as mundane and clear as possible. And I like the quote.

Re:Battlestar Galactica Quote

[drinkypoo]

My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army.

Your quote fails to recognize that it doesn't matter who's policing you if their goal is not to do the will of the people, because the people have thrown up their hands and said fuck it and given up even trying to keep them in check.

The police behave just like the military, except with shittier muzzle and trigger discipline.

Re:Battlestar Galactica Quote

[tinkerton]

You're criticizing my quote for not saying something else as well?
In any case you're underestimating the reach of that quote. When the police militarizes, in attitude and in gear, it does not only cause a change in relationship, it is also a symptom. It's a very bad sign.
If the (US ) police behave just like the military , it's because the situation has deteriorated too far . I'm not talking about bad cops that are protected by those in command. You can see that in the rules of engagement.A US cop can and does get sanctioned for following european style rules of engagement. When there's a possible threat, the cop has to shoot because the life of the cop is important, the other person's life is not. This is military logic.

Re:Censorship!

[Z80a]

They don't care about SJWs, they just don't want their squeaky clean brands "tainted" by anything that may even remotely sound like something wrong.
Prove em that the so called SJW thing is also hateful and hurting their brand (not that hard really), and you will see they get rid of em just as quickly.

Re:Hit Job on Google?

[mentil]

According to Wikipedia, The Times AND Wall Street Journal are both owned by News Corp. Coincidence they both did Youtube hit pieces in a short timeframe? Is Rupert Murdoch above such things?

Re:Care to buy ad time on a platform based on rand

[thegarbz]

Duh is not the right reaction when dealing with a company that specialises itself in automated analytics and TARGETED advertising.

YouTube in an EVIL nutshell

[shanen]

Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.

The basis of the "insightful" moderation is eluding me. Par for today's Slashdot, though I remain more discouraged by the lack of actually "funny" comments. Or perhaps I should say dismayed by both?

Or maybe it's just too hard for me to imagine why anyone would pay to advertise anything on YouTube. For a lot of the user-generated content the adjective execrable is just too kind. Not sure about "dissenting opinions", but the only ones I remember noticing were on the wrong side of execrable.

These is some legitimate and good content, but it's mostly teasers and since it's purpose is to advertise itself, then any other ads are just confusing the issue, and my feeling is that most of the teaser content is free of ads, or at least the ads are not intrusive. Things like snippets from HBO or paid news channels.

The rest of the wannabe good content is pirated stuff. Much of that is reduced below good by the insertion of lots of intrusive ads, obviously for cases where the pirate is profiting that way, but YouTube has an obvious vested interest in supporting that sort of thing as long as some sucker is paying for the ads. Then there is a HUGE amount of fake piracy that is just intended to lure you to an installer where your computer will get pwned. Offensive enough, but downright EVIL when it is targeting innocent children, and LOTS of it has been doing exactly that for many years.

I used to waste some time trying to fight against it, but I eventually realized the google is too EVIL to care now, as long as they are making money off it. The motto about "Don't be evil" is long dead in favor of "All your attention are belong to us." However there is a real threat to the google's new mission statement. They had to revise it when they realized there was too much information out there and that "useful" was a complicated notion. The new mission of the google is to make the advertisers' information available and the utility function is the corporations' profits. Humans are only incidentally involved.

Re:YouTube in an EVIL nutshell

[drinkypoo]

Or maybe it's just too hard for me to imagine why anyone would pay to advertise anything on YouTube.

Advertisers' goal is typically to connect with stupid people who will buy shit they don't need. And what a coincidence: people too dumb to block ads on Youtube are spectacularly stupid, thus ideal for typically sophomoric marketing tactics designed to make people feel bad enough about themselves to buy some garbage.

Re:YouTube in an EVIL nutshell

[shanen]

I think I'm glad that you got the insightful mod, but at the same time I think you could have gone much deeper with it.

The deep part that bothers me most is how advertising is tied to corporations that WANT docile, obedient, and even STUPID consumers who will obey the ads. Of course the risk of destroying public education was that there is no bottom limit to the resulting stupidity. Maybe you could even wind up with an insane clown president? Naw, That could never happen.

I do have to say a bit about why I don't use ad blockers. I feel like that is a violation of the implicit (and sometimes even explicit) agreement between me and the people who are incurring real costs to make the content available. I think there has to be some kind of business model there, and if I participate on the basis of being exposed to ads, then I shouldn't play technical games with the details.

Having said that, I confess that I am allergic to ads. If I can remember ANY ad for a product, then I count that as a reason to buy something else. Seems to be kind of self-defeating to make me watch a company's ads, and I doubt that company would be willing to pay to show me their competitors' ads. I suppose the obvious "technical solution" from the perspective of the advertising agency with the perfect weapon would be to detect the polarity of the viewers of the ads, tailoring each ad to each sucker, and in cases such as mine, that tailoring would be to advertise the main competitor in the most annoying way.

Solution time? Let me CHOOSE THE ADS that I am interested in seeing BEFORE wasting my time by shoving them in my face.

First example: They could give me several links to pick from to determine which advertiser's ads I see. Interesting wrinkle would be to tweak the timing of the ads to find out how the customers feel about the advertised products: "Do you want to watch this video with two minutes of beer ads or with a one-minute ad for sanitary napkins?" If people keep selecting product A, then the system would keep increasing the ads for A seeking equilibrium.

Second example: Auction my time for watching ads. The auctioneer would have a strong incentive to protect my privacy to protect future auctions, and I would have a strong incentive to give the auctioneer some real data about what I actually want to buy. The companies bidding for my time would have a strong incentive to reach truly qualified and interested customers.

Can you believe that I can actually fantasize about applying such solutions to the cesspool that is YouTube? I must be getting even more delusional.

Re:YouTube in an EVIL nutshell

[serviscope_minor]

. For a lot of the user-generated content the adjective execrable is just too kind. Not sure about "dissenting opinions", but the only ones I remember noticing were on the wrong side of execrable.

These is some legitimate and good content, but it's mostly teasers and since it's purpose is to advertise itself, then any other ads are just confusing the issue, and my feeling is that most of the teaser content is free of ads, or at least the ads are not intrusive. Things like snippets from HBO or paid news channels.

No, that's not right. There's plenty of utter, obnoxious shite on youtube, don't get me wrong. There are also heaps upon heaps of utterly fansastic videos. Anything about making/building usually has just amazing videos.

For example only the other day, I was having trouble with the skew chisel catching the workpiece (I'm learning to use a wood lathe) and quickly found an excellent video on how to use a wood chisel, and another with very detailed explanations of what the various catches are with common tools, why they happen and how to avoid them. Very informative.

A while back, I was re-grouting and watched a great tutorial video on how to professionally regrout and get that very smooth, uniform look (it worked).

There's long format videos on machining, detailed videos about which kinds of drill to use when and how to drill awkward holes, how to part off on a lathe without the workpiece riding over the tool, how to teardown a broken speed controller and replace the MOSFETS, astonishingly detailed teardowns of very expensive kit showing the tricks used to get the amazing performance and so on and so forth. Want to make a blind dovetail? Here's 5 videos! Trouble with splatter in your stick welding? Watch this and learn! Can't remember how to cast on or cast off your knitting? Excellent videos for that too, with detailed explanations of the relative merits of the different types.

Perhaps you're more computer oriented. If you missed the most recent C++ conference live, you can get all the videos, and Q&A sessions online to save you the airfare and conference fees. Substitute almost any other conference topic there for C++ too.

An so on and so forth. Basically if you're looking to make, do or learn about things, then YouTube has the most astonishing variety of incredible stuff the likes of which the world has simply not seen before.

Re:YouTube in an EVIL nutshell

[shanen]

I think I agree with you, but those videos are mostly labors of love and not driven by the advertising concerns that are the focus of the original article or the broken and even criminal economic models that are my main focus. There are some other gems on YouTube, but I think few of them are related to the google's greed, which is the deeper source of my increasing dislike of the google.

Hurt Google in the wallet.

[suss]

This is where you hurt Google, in the wallet, because reporting hate videos does nothing, as long as they get views (and ad revenue).

Re:Censorship!

[Z80a]

The real racists are anyone that think and divide the population by the race instead of personal merits and views.
And there's no color or specific gender required to do that, just a lack of deeper thought and a general willingness to let some stupid group think for you.
But if i would give the SJW a color, i would say that most are actually white, due how they can easily fall for the "shame of being born white".

Was nice while it lasted

[AndyKron]

The corporate overlords are finally squashing YouTube. Didn't take long.

Re:Hit Job on Google?

[IamTheRealMike]

No, News Corp has been doing this for years. The reason is Murdoch thinks Google and Google News specifically is killing the news industry, and that the iPad will save it (or at least he thought that a few years ago). It's pure inter-corporate warfare being played out through manipulation of public opinion. The WSJ in particular are experts at it.

Re:Hit Job on Google?

[drinkypoo]

Just over a month ago, the WSJ did a hitjob on Pewdiepie, one of Youtube's most-subscribed personalities, causing his ad funding and Youtube Red channel to get cancelled.

Just over a month ago, PewDiePie did something stupid that could easily convince a moron that he is an anti-semite. Because it was so stupid, and he made no attempt to actually be clever and was instead only incendiary as per usual, he lost his ad funding and youtube red channel, and will have to find his own soapbox. If he had anything worth saying, he would have been able to find someone else to pick him up, but he doesn't so he didn't. That's the whole story.

Re: Care to buy ad time on a platform based on ran

[Zero__Kelvin]

They Target the audience successfully, unless your claim is that racists don't like Wal Mart. The complaint is that those companies don't like some of their potential and actual customers, not that their ads are wasted on them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Hit Job on Google?

[AmiMoJo]

Or maybe it's just that Pewdiepie's gimmick is making really "edgey" videos that are not what these companies want to advertise on, and they are upset about it.

Nay, conspiracy theory makes more sense.

This is You Tube's Fault

[cpbright]

This is You Tube's fault. When an advertiser comes to them they should ask "what do you want your advertising to be applied to?" instead You Tube gets greedy and shows the advertising on everything under the sun and then blame the You Tube videos and then top it off by calling obviously non hateful videos hateful and screwing them. How bad of a business model is that!

Re:This is You Tube's Fault

[misexistentialist]

Advertisers don't care, even Hitler bought stuff. They don't want their business being interfered with by government and activists

Re: Why the media blitz over this?

[BlueStrat]

Armies of clever snowflakes finding a way to cut funding to fascists.

Simple solution: The snowflakes should become unemployed.

Result: No more funds for fascist snowflakes who prefer to riot to shut down speech they don't like!

See? Easy-peasy!

Strat

Re:Why the media blitz over this?

[serviscope_minor]

The coca cola company is an SJW now? Seriously what the fuck even is an NEW in your mind?

No it's not

[rsilvergun]

and it hasn't been. Ever. You're full of it and spouting a right wing talking point used to shut down attempts to attack what is very plainly attempts to legitimize violent racism once again. Piss off.

Facts discount your opinion

[s.petry]

I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them. That generally means that the content creator can't earn revenue through YouTube any more, but the videos are not being censored or removed.

This has actually been happening for ages due to copyright issues. For example, a lot of Mario players on Twitch also post clips to YouTube, but they can't be monetized because Nintendo won't allow it and will file copyright claims if you try to. So they make their money from Twitch and Patreon and merchandise, rather than YouTube ads.

Sucks but you can't really force advertisers to give you money.

While the first part is true what you omit is that if people can not monetize videos they won't make them. You can be the best bread maker in the world, but if nobody pays you to make bread you are out of business and working for someone else as a shoe maker.

It's also a selective process. A person like Blaire White who happens to be a transgender women with the wrong political view is demonetized, but a person who does nothing but copy CNN videos and label them with extremist anti-Trump titles makes 100-200K a month from Youtube. That goes against Fair Use laws, in addition to being selective bias.

Re:Facts discount your opinion

[AmiMoJo]

While the first part is true what you omit is that if people can not monetize videos they won't make them.

So if no-one wants to give you money to make videos, you should be entitled to it anyway? Advertisers should be forced to give them money?

Anyone who has support can set up a Patreon and take money directly. Yes, there is a gap between that level of support and starting out with zero, but there is no good solution to that. At least it's now cheaper and easier than ever to make and publish videos online, with a cost approaching zero.

Re:Facts discount your opinion

[lgw]

While the first part is true what you omit is that if people can not monetize videos they won't make them

Not true, but it does create a barrier to entry. Two of my favorite YouTube channels are Patreon-funded, because they don't shy away from offending people. One is a political commenter, one is Jim Fucking Sterling, son (if you're going to make a game review video while waving a 3-foot long dildo sword, you're under no illusions about YouTube monetization). I have no idea how Red Letter Media wins vs the copyright trolls, but I have a feeling they'd be just fine if they lost their YT ad revenue.

But those are established names. Especially in political commentary, it would be very hard to "break out" if YouTube were demonetizing you from the start.

I think it's already been pointed out elsewhere

[rsilvergun]

in the thread, but that's not how youtube sells the service. They tell advertisers that their analytics will target advertising exactly as the advertiser wants. And it will. Google will fix this and it'll become part of youtube. And yes, that means you won't be able to make money spouting controversial opinions without qualification on Youtube anymore unless you start a patreon.

Re: Why the media blitz over this?

[ncc74656]

Simple solution: The snowflakes should become unemployed.

In considerable measure, they already are not just unemployed, but unemployable. Think about it: for what work is your average women's studies graduate qualified, beyond asking if you'd like fries with that? Even that's asking too much of them, given the likelihood they'd spit in your burger if they accused you of directing your "male gaze" at them for so much as a microsecond.

Saudi Arabia

[Tenebrousedge]

Everything quoted is true with one exception.

But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud. It is still actively promoted by them and they want it to be the default sect of Islam. Wahhabism teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that praying five times a day and making a pilgrimage to Mecca is a duty. That would be the reason why 15/19 of the September 11th attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Al Queda is Wahhabist, and so is the Islamic State.

I hear Trump went to Saudi Arabia to kiss ass a couple weeks ago. Isn't interesting that at this height of anti-Islamic sentiment, our leaders are embracing the Saudis? Funny how this idea of Wahhabism has had zero press since 9/11 too.

By the way, if you want a real introduction to Islamic history, pick up a book called 'Destiny Disrupted'. I am the mushy liberal who welcomes all -law abiding- muslims, but I recommend the book in the sense of 'know your enemy'. It's not a book to change anyone's opinions. It may give you some perspective on exactly how far the Islamic world has fallen. It will refine your priorities of what sects to keep an eye on.

Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else. The religion is fucked, and more or less incompatible with either the modern concept of the nation-state and generally prohibitive of democracy. But western civilizations beat the Islamic world so badly in the 18th and 19th centuries that we don't even bother to teach that part of history. The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories. And if you'll take a look at (e.g.) the civil war going on in Afghanistan, it will hopefully become clear that these people are mostly dangerous to themselves (especially in the sense that sharia law does not apply to non-Muslims). However, to the degree that there is a threat, let's do be specific about which country is exporting terrorism and terrorist ideas.

Re:Saudi Arabia

[Raenex]

Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud.

Wahhabism may be one of the worst, but as far as I know all major sects still have as official doctrine the basic idea that Islam must reign supreme and Jihad is an acceptable path to that, following the Quran and the example of Muhammad. Look, for example, at the Muslim Brotherhood, or the theocracy in Iran, etc. If you look at all the bloody borders where Islam is fighting for supremacy, you can't limit it to just Wahhabism.

Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else.

True, but it's still a real threat, and I'm not into self-inflicted wounds because "diversity is strength", "not all Muslims", and "all religions have bad parts". As long as the beating, black heart remains within Islam, I do not want to import more Islam.

The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories.

That's a failing of education, not a lack of significance. For all the tears and angst about the Crusades, they were minor excursions compared to the depth and breadth of Islamic expansion, including deep excursions into Europe, including the conquering of Spain.

Re:Saudi Arabia

[Tenebrousedge]

You don't know as much as you think you do, and you're spreading a message of fear which is unnecessary and uninformed. Get your head out of your ass and learn your enemy's teachings -- it's the only path to victory. You need to understand jihad as it is understood by Muslims, or you'll fight the wrong threats. Mostly you're a terrified moronic misanthrope, but to the degree to which you're not you need to actually understand what you're talking about.

Re:Saudi Arabia

[Raenex]

Responding with insults, and only insults, shows the weakness in your own arguments, not mine.

Re:Saudi Arabia

[Tenebrousedge]

Telling you to get your head out of your ass and learn something is not an insult. You deserve abuse. You're spreading a message of fear and hate, and as it happens you have an extremely loose understanding of who you're attempting to target. These are all bad things, but your argument isn't completely baseless. You just don't know which parts might be valid and which might not, because you don't understand your enemy. You prefer to dehumanize and demonize them, because it's an effective way to make other people fearful. You want people to sign up for a religious war, and to that end you don't particularly care if your knowledge of the other religion is accurate. And you don't care about the consequences of this mistaken belief because you're a general misanthrope.

That this is a common behavior pattern has a lot to do with why these brown people you don't like keep trying to kill us. Your post could be a recruiting message for ISIL -- "See? The Americans are going to treat you like a terrorist whether or not you are one, so you may as well take up arms." And among other things this is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to have happen: that the US would be so consumed by fear as to oppress our own citizens, and export our own brand of indiscriminate terror. You need to figure out how to be more dangerous than useful to your enemies.

Re:Saudi Arabia

[Raenex]

Again, hurling insults, and only insults, shows the weakness in your arguments, not mine. You claimed the problem was just Wahhabism, and I pointed out concrete examples that went beyond that. I also pointed out the historical expansion of Islam and compared it to the much ballyhooed Crusades. I pointed out scriptures and the example of the warlord Muhammad.

Rather than address all these things, you claim I don't know anything and hurl insults. That's an argument from authority that does nothing to counter the examples I gave. Continue on hurling your insults and making a political correctness argument all you want, it has no merit and won't budge me an inch.

Re:Saudi Arabia

[Tenebrousedge]

Your education on this subject is insufficient for discussion. You have no idea of the context of these topics in either current or historical Muslim philosophy. You're an adult and should not need to be spoon fed information. The book I mentioned will be a good introduction to the relevant phases of expansion and the beliefs on jihad at those times and in the present. And I can promise your opinion of Islam will be preserved.

The insults you deserve. What you are doing is more or less exactly what is meant by jihad. We as a nation do not need to engage in religious conflicts, domestic or abroad. The analysis of the threat from radical Islam needs to be driven by intelligence, in the military sense. Islam is a deeply divided religion, and understanding those divisions is very important in controlling the region. The suggestion that anyone is making a politically correct argument here is ludicrous.

Get off it. You know that you know next to nothing about Islam, and what you're objecting to is that you don't think I have any right to call you on that. You can't articulate what the Muslim idea of jihad is in either a historical or modern context, and you can't give any reasons why medieval interpretations of Islamic expansionism have any relevance to modern politics. You have never talked to any Muslim on this subject or read anything written by a Muslim on this subject, or you would know that violent interpretations of jihad are very much not the dominant view. Quote-mining Muhammad, whose every word has had centuries of religious and legal interpretation, is facile. You don't know Mughals from Ottomans from Umayyads. Go educate yourself.

Re:Saudi Arabia

[Raenex]

Your education on this subject is insufficient for discussion.

Then prove it. Explain why the examples I gave are untrue. The Muslim Brotherhood is not Wahhabism. The Iran theocracy is not Wahhabism. And you're going to sit there and tell me every terrorist attack and bloody border in the Islamic world is Wahhabism? Every call for oppressive and authoritarian Sharia law is Wahhabism? Every Imam preaching how Islam must reign supreme is Wahhabism?

Maybe it's your education that is insufficient, which is why when confronted with examples you could not refute, you resorted to insults.

The suggestion that anyone is making a politically correct argument here is ludicrous.

It's exactly what you are making, because you don't focus on facts, just feelings, and insults because the facts don't line up on your side.

Wait..

[CptLoRes]

there are ads on YouTube?

Re:Censorship!

[Z80a]

Making any sort of speech a crime is basically using the police to enforce your views.
And that's not exactly a good idea.

Stupid...

[bored]

How hard is it for google to hire a few dozen people to whitelist and manually tag videos for political/religious/profanity/etc before allowing sensitive corp advertising?

Yah, sure I get it, google has a trillion videos and picking trending ones, or whatever for human validation before they pump sensitive advertising money at is hard... So instead they spend hundreds of millions to create algorithms/etc to do it for them, and said algorithms frequently fail because context is a lot harder than detecting a short list of profane words.

I used to work at a company that resold a (robotic) solution that cost seven figures. One day it dawned on me, that at the prices being paid, someone could literally hire a 4 shift rotation of humans in a "cheap labor" country train them for 5 minutes to follow the instructions on a screen and the labor/etc was 1/10th our annual support plan. So, why did anyone every buy it? I guess its because we had far less expensive/capable products too. Those products weren't expensive enough and far easier to deal with than similarly capable humans, its only because the price went up exponentially with capability. Sure at some point a customer could have kicked out our robotic solution but by then they were sold on the concept and even considered that there was a crossover point where our markup made the product less desirable. They simply called up the salesman asked for the next larger configuration, gulped at the price and paid up (possibly after calling one of our competitors).

FINALLY!

[n329619]

With all those stupid advertisers leaving, youtube will no longer put ads of the same shampoo ads on unrelated videos over and over again! Our sanity had been saved!