Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Advertisers Are Still Boycotting YouTube Over Offensive Videos (go.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the quarterly-results dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press:The fallout from the YouTube boycott is likely to be felt through the rest of this year. Skittish advertisers have curtailed their spending until they are convinced Google can prevent their brands from appearing next to extremist clips promoting hate and violence... At one point, about 250 advertisers were boycotting YouTube... The list included big-spending marketers such as PepsiCo, Wal-Mart Stores, Starbucks, AT&T, Verizon, Johnson & Johnson, and Volkswagen.

It's unclear how many, if any, of those have returned to YouTube since Google promised to hire more human reviewers and upgrade its technology to keep ads away from repugnant videos. Both Verizon and AT&T, two companies that are trying to expand their own digital ad networks to compete with Google, told The Associated Press that they are still boycotting YouTube. FX Networks confirmed that it isn't advertising on YouTube either. Several other boycotting marketers contacted by AP didn't respond.
Thursday CEO Sundar Pichai told analysts that responding to the boycott, Google held "thousands and thousands" of conversations with advertisers, and one analyst now estimates reduced ad spending on YouTube and Google could cost the company $300 million this year alone.

92 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. I didn't notice by johanw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who watches Youtube (and ther rest of the internet) without an adblocker anyway?

    1. Re: I didn't notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ironically, I've found that sites that sites that block adblock users often don't have useful content anyway. Win/win!

    2. Re: I didn't notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better solution is to just not visit those sites in the first place. They will change their policies if they realize their visitors have dropped since implementing the anti adblock solutions.

      If you absolutely must get information from there, use google cache or internet archive or similar. But please don't give them your business!

    3. Re:I didn't notice by dfm3 · · Score: 2

      So then just use something like uBlock Origin with one of the anti-adblock lists enabled.

      Website owners can implement adblock checks all they want, but somebody will come along and develop a way to circumvent it. When the website gets updated, someone will just update the blocklist again. the more popular the website, generally the shorter the delay. Each time it happens, the site developers need to expend time and resources if they want to stay on top of the arms race.

    4. Re: I didn't notice by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      They can provide a subscription service

      YouTube does provide a subscription service. YouTube Red.

      I've been test-driving Google Play Music as an alternative to Spotify recently, and subscribing to Google Play Music includes a subscription to YouTube Red. It's nice to not worry about ads or anti-adblock measures from YouTube any more. It's a couple of bucks a month and for people who watch a lot of YouTube, it's pretty reasonable.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:I didn't notice by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Probably some of those people owning the 2.5billion smartphones which are out there and using the Youtube app.

    6. Re: I didn't notice by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's explains why there is a single ad-blocker that most of the people here are recommending.

  2. Children and bathwaters by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos. The problem is that YouTube went overboard and now considers everything "offensive" that's not basically cute kittens playing with yarn, not just extremists videos demanding the execution of everything who follows the wrong delusion.

    The problem here is that the reason people went from traditional media and to YouTube is exactly that they're fed up with having "family friendly" bullshit shoved down their throats. If that's all that remains on YouTube, people will simply move on.

    And then nobody sees your pretty ads either.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Children and bathwaters by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      You get the offensive stuff without ads! Think about that. More reason to watch the offensive stuff. They didn't think this through.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:Children and bathwaters by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the issue isn't that when people see the add for Pepsi next to a violent extremist video people will relate that Pepsi is endorsing the video. But the act of continued advertising next to the video is endorsing it. What a lot of companies are slowly realizing is that what they spend money on can often have further reaching consequences. Do you want the PR after the next mass shooting that the kids weapons were funded from your company due too add revenue on his hateful YouTube blog?
      Or even with the recent Fox News with Bill O'riely, he didn't get fired for what he did but got fired because major companies were pulling out. He get fired, the company that pulled out looks good because it appears they have a conscience the get press for that and it is free advertising.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re: Children and bathwaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, YouTube has gone overboard with what they consider offensive. Now, facts are offensive if they hurt the idealistic liberal worldview.

      Take a statement like "In the US, Black's have lower IQs than whites." This statement is not at all hate speech. Like it or not, this statement is 100% true. We can debate whether IQ really measures intelligence, oe whether the test is racist or otherwise flawed. We can debate how much of the IQ difference is due to genetics, economic inequalities, or cultural upbringing. But we cannot debate whether blacks or whites in America have a higher IQ, as studies have consistently shown that whites overall perform better on IQ tests than blacks. Censoring facts by calling them "hate speech" is just absolutely unacceptable, but yet it seems to be trendy today, just so we can all live in our safe space utopias and feel good about the world.

      Ignorance may be bliss for you, and if so, then don't search for facts about things that may not support your worldview. But stop trying to censor facts and opinions that are contrary to what you wish things to be.

    4. Re: Children and bathwaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The worst part is that it actually harms black people if that information is suppressed. Poverty is arguably the biggest reason for lower IQ and higher crime rates in black populations. The same trend can be seen in "white areas" that are poor. It's not a racial thing, it's a poverty thing and no one is going to try to fix it if the information is silenced because "das rayciss!"

      On the flip side, white people have more Neanderthal genes and the Neanderthal was actually smarter than other humans, so it is possible that whites are genetically predisposed to be smarter than blacks. Some people might not like this concept. Facts don't care about your feelings. Toughen up, buttercup.

    5. Re:Children and bathwaters by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos. The problem is that YouTube went overboard and now considers everything "offensive" that's not basically cute kittens playing with yarn, not just extremists videos demanding the execution of everything who follows the wrong delusion.

      The problem here is that the reason people went from traditional media and to YouTube is exactly that they're fed up with having "family friendly" bullshit shoved down their throats. If that's all that remains on YouTube, people will simply move on.

      And then nobody sees your pretty ads either.

      The people who are really supporting the offensive videos are the viewers. The add just comes with the viewer click. Just put a disclaimer on all ads, "we are not endorsing any content, but you are by clicking on it".

    6. Re:Children and bathwaters by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos.

      Yeah, what bullshit to think that an ad appearing immediately before a video might get associated with a video.

      The problem is that YouTube went overboard and now considers everything "offensive" that's not basically cute kittens playing with yarn, not just extremists videos demanding the execution of everything who follows the wrong delusion.

      No, the problem is not that Google considers those videos "offensive". It's that advertisers consider them "offensive" and don't want to advertise on them.

      You can still post a video that isn't "family friendly", but big companies don't want to advertise on your video and Google won't make them.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Children and bathwaters by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I love it when people invoke their own reason for using a specific tool as the only reason anyone uses it.

      Youtube became big because, basically, it's just easy to find videos. It has nothing to do with trying to avoid "family values", that's just your own rationale (and honestly, I don't actually believe it's even your's, you're just trying to show your weird alt-right street cred).

      And if Youtube is going to be supported by ads, then advertisers have some considerable right to demand that their products not be associated, even accidentally, with violent or otherwise unsavory videos. You may not like it, but tough shit. Until Google finally allows for a paid subscription service for Youtube which allows people to skip ads entirely, the advertisers still have an enormous amount of muscle, and you don't.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re: Children and bathwaters by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we have this measure which is iffy at best, and in most cases hopelessly biased towards certain socioeconomic groups, but hey, it's a great meme "Blacks are dumber than whites, and it's not racist because this groovy Intelligence Quotient test says so!"

      In general, psychology and neurological sciences have long past moved away from IQ, simply because it's absurd to imagine that something as complex as human cognition can be fit into one number, considering cognition itself seems to be the product of multiple processing and memory systems in the brain.

      So promoting "whites have higher IQs than blacks" *MAY* be true for some kinds of intelligence tests, that kind of testing is so flawed that it's hard to see how proponents of the claim aren't just racists once again using the cloak of pseudoscience to try to bolster their hatred.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re: Children and bathwaters by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how that proves Neanderthals were smarter than H. sapiens sapiens, and in fact the very article you quote makes no such claim. You just made up the conclusion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Children and bathwaters by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So you think someone who is promoting the killing of homosexuals isn't hate speech?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re: Children and bathwaters by DogDude · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      But the thing is, companies have decided that it's not worth it to advertise to assholes like you. THEY DON'T WANT YOUR MONEY. As a small business owner, I also don't want money from assholes. It's got nothing about free speech or censorship, or whatever words that you're throwing around without understanding. Nobody wants to be associated with assholes like you, except for other assholes.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    12. Re: Children and bathwaters by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because public schools are run by morons who are still stuck in 1950s in regards to assessing students. As it is, even with standardized IQ tests, the numbers have been rising in many populations, including African-Americans for decades, suggesting that what IQ measures isn't really raw cognitive capacity at all (ie. the Flynn Effect).

      One of the biggest reasons for lower cognitive ability isn't genetic at all, but poor nutrition during the developmental years, and that's one of the reasons that socio-economic status has been viewed as a significant player in general and specific cognitive abilities. There's no doubt there's a genetic component, but like anything, genetics sets general parameters, and it is environment that takes over after conception. Considering that many ethno-racial groups in the Americas have not been equal beneficiaries of over all socio-economic improvements, that would strike me as a good reason for why we see phenomena like the Flynn Effect. But that's a rather dull explanation, and not one that allows some Neo-nazi to declare he's superior to African-Americans.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Children and bathwaters by Desler · · Score: 1

      So, for example, when conservatives called the Lucifer show offensive and tried to get advertisers to boycott it it was because they were special snowflakes?

    14. Re:Children and bathwaters by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos.

      Did you see the list of companies in TFS? For at least half of them an association with Nazi terrorist puppy mulchers would improve their image.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Children and bathwaters by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos

      Except that isn't it.

      There are literal terrorist groups that have videos on YouTube. The thing is, if an advert appears next to their videos, they get some money.

      Do you really not understand why people don't want to actively find terrorist groups?

      Nothing gives anyone the reasonable expectation that they need to be paid for their speech.

      The problem is that YouTube went overboard and now considers everything "offensive" that's not basically cute kittens playing with yarn

      News to me. None of my favorite channels have been cut and none of them are of cats. Some of them have caused a great deal of offence to very many people.

      It's not like it's hard to very hosted if you want. My web host for random stuff (dreamhost) has the policy that anything protected under the first amendment in the US is OK. If you want a platform and can't be arsed to set up one of your own, pay them the few bucks a month they demand and speak to your heart's content.

      Just don't expect other people who think you're a douchebag to pay you.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re: Children and bathwaters by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      How so? Im a Professional Electrician, Working Class. Please tell me more about how "professionals" dont work.

    17. Re:Children and bathwaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because they've been convinced that association will occur by social justice retards like yourself.

    18. Re: Children and bathwaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here are the facts that we know:

      "Donald Trump won Tuesdayâ(TM)s election by racking up big margins in counties that are, on average, older, whiter and less-educated than the rest of the U.S."
      https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-trump-got-his-edge/

      "Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump"

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

    19. Re:Children and bathwaters by yuriklastalov · · Score: 2

      Yes. Being a Special Snowflake is not a matter of right/left, rather it's an additional axis. It's plain that the types of behaviors associated with the Snowflakes are present on both sides of the political spectrum. On the left, we have the Intersectional Feminist/Progressives and their opposites in autism, the Alt-right. Identity politics wouldn't be possible without opposing parties, the Alt-right is a "reactionary" response to the activities of the Radical Social Justice crowd.

    20. Re: Children and bathwaters by Howitzer86 · · Score: 2

      It's not a racial thing, it's a poverty thing

      While that's a cute proposal (and I agree with it), it's not the prevailing narrative from the people talking about this.

      The typical narrative here is that blacks are more violent because of their alleged low average IQs. We're told that as one reason why people should be okay with the idea of separating from one another based on race. If you believe it, you have an easy way to stay safe and to avoid the potential that your children may fall in love with one and produce inferior offspring.

      Obviously, the only fix these people will accept is an official return to segregation, or at the very least, a cultural acceptance of our natural tendency to segregate.

      As for the Neanderthals, since they're all dead, nobody knows how intelligent they were. We know how big their skull cavities are, but the size of their ancient bones does not clue us in to their intelligence. If it suggests anything for sure, it's that they were better adapted for survival in cold climates.

    21. Re:Children and bathwaters by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Calling people names to bully them for having a different opinion than you is unlikely to decrease their interest in social justice.

    22. Re:Children and bathwaters by nnull · · Score: 1

      A big chunk of those advertisers advertise on porn sites and don't seem to have a problem with it either.

    23. Re: Children and bathwaters by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      IQ tests are complete crap. I've got a high enough score that it isn't sour grapes. More like syrupy grapes. Total complete bullshit, and the funniest part is that to get a high score I have to lie and give the answers that I think the test writer wanted to hear instead of the answers that I think are actually true.

      Also, the algebra word problem at the end? The fish is always 72 inches, because the test authors suck at math and only one algebra story problem was ever created for IQ tests, and it was copied to all the others. So before even starting the real questions, skip to the end and get your Bonus Points.

      If you're from a community where kids aren't subjected to IQ tests all the time... no Bonus Points for you, you bleeping moron. What are you, one of those [unpopular ethnicity] [pejorative]s?!?!

      Trying to explain that to these idiots won't work, because they're not actually talking about IQ scores. They're just blowing dog whistles that us northerners can't hear without special training.

    24. Re:Children and bathwaters by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      They should follow their own advice if they expect others to.

    25. Re:Children and bathwaters by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      They'll see it as yet another ad that's preventing them from watching what it is they want to watch, and associate the brand with THAT negative experience instead.

      Do you want the PR after the next mass shooting that the kids weapons were funded from your company due too add revenue on his hateful YouTube blog?

      Did you know that 100% of terrorists breathe oxygen? If you breathe oxygen, you're a terrorist! Do we blame toyota for bank robberies when a corolla is used as a getaway car? No. Societies that reason this way are doomed to total(itarian) failure. Such irrationality should be pointed out and criticized.

    26. Re: Children and bathwaters by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That post didn't say these tests were complete indicators of ability. In fact, it said otherwise. The truly 'problematic' thing is the constant drenching of science in political correctness to make it impossible for the public (and possibly many researchers) to tell what's factually correct.

      But hey, I get it, it's the age of the alt-right, where saying "Blacks are dumber than whites" is now apparently some sort of unassailable dogma, and where a previous generation's debunked or at least heavily questioned claims are brought back and again asserted to be absolute truth.

      Actually, no. The current trend hasn't changed much. It's just that these snowflakes didn't get their way with one specific election, and being the snowflakes they are, they bitch and whine that this is the end of the world.

      The reality is that the left still controls the majority of the media and public discussion on these topics. It's nearly impossible to debate them openly, and even when it does happen, it's impossible to point out logical or factual errors in their viewpoints without being labeled as some form of bigot. This is coupled with a real risk of getting kicked out of school/work (there's an example of systemic oppression) by their local socjus fifth column, whether it's the campus 'diversity' office or HR.

    27. Re:Children and bathwaters by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Exactly and now the companies that bought "targeted adverts" are pretending they don't know how they work.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    28. Re: Children and bathwaters by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Fun fact (and this is actually a fact) they found Muslims born during certain months every year had lower birth rates (and intelligence and health and ...). The same months... over and over.

      Why? Turns out these women all fast during Ramadan, and the kids are more likely to have problems if the mother fasts closer to conception than further away.

      Infer whatever you want. But it's an interesting factoid.

    29. Re:Children and bathwaters by ckatko · · Score: 1

      I love that you said both sides have snowflakes but failed to mention examples of right-wing people being snowflakes.

    30. Re: Children and bathwaters by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Being an electrician is not a "profession"?

      Wow. Just wow.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    31. Re:Children and bathwaters by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Nah, it is all total bullshit and the arseholes at Alphabet are part of the lie. Mass censorship targeting anti-corporate messages. Basically scammy Alphabet are playing along to see if the can drive away content producers they can not dictate too and control. This is for establishment control over the political messaging the public is allowed to see and as approved by the piece of shit corporations. They want the corporate political advertisement tied to the consumer advertisement, the empty tied to the useless. Ignore politics and consumer more is what they want and it will fail miserably.

      The reason people are abandoning cable and free to air is because it is shite and they go to youtube to get away. Don't want to advertise on youtube, fine, fuck off. Youtuve wants to silence non-corporate approved content creators, fine they can fuck off. Other companies will turn up and youtube like all social media platforms will die.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:Children and bathwaters by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what bullshit to think that an ad appearing immediately before a video might get associated with a video.

      Yes, frankly, what bullshit.

      Unless an ad is an explicit tie-in with the video content, I am not going to assume that the advertiser gives any endorsement (or rejection) of the content. Why would I?

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    33. Re:Children and bathwaters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh please. YouTube shows me ads for assholes peddling their religious bullshit when I watch videos of people debunking the very same religious bullshit. If that's their "targeted" advertising, I hope and pray they never go into making military hardware and if, that they only sell to the enemy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:Children and bathwaters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I usually only associate ads with "5 4 3 2 1 skip". I rarely see more than the lower right corner of them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:Children and bathwaters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You are aware that the ones peddling this kind of bullshit association are the very same media that first of all now run this smear campaign in a weak attempt to get advertisers back to them from YouTube?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:Children and bathwaters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah, it works just fine on the channels that debunk religious bullshit, too. It's not a left vs. right thing. It's more a reality vs. feelgood-makebelieve thing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    37. Re:Children and bathwaters by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what bullshit to think that an ad appearing immediately before a video might get associated with a video.

      Yes, frankly, what bullshit.

      Unless an ad is an explicit tie-in with the video content, I am not going to assume that the advertiser gives any endorsement (or rejection) of the content. Why would I?

      So lets ignore the entire (in my opinion legitimate) problem of negative impression through association, and instead just concentrate on just the people who, when they see a video before an ad, assume the advertiser more or less chose to advertise on that specific video (or style of video).

      Now consider a video posted by a neoNazi.

      Think about the people who realize you didn't choose that video (or don't realize but don't care), how much is that ad impression worth to you?

      Now think about the people who see the video, don't like neoNazis, and think you're deliberately supporting neoNazis. Now think of them telling their friends that you support neoNazis. How much is that going to cost you?

      That second group doesn't have to be very large before it's really not worth your while to advertise on Youtube if you can't avoid the neoNazis.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    38. Re:Children and bathwaters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. First if Alphabet just wanted to please the corporate overlord, why did they allow anti-corporate content-approved to make money until now?

      And second, and more importantly, many people who do post "controversial" content (read: Content that may make very special people feel a bit uncomfortable because it kills their batshit insane narrative with a dose of reality) are dependent on that income from YouTube. They made YouTube their "job" so to speak, and them making content is dependent on them being able to earn money that way. Simply saying "fuck Youtube if they don't want to perform, fine, we move on" is easily said but hard to do when you depend on their income scheme to work out.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Oddly Enough... by cirby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    YouTube seems to be putting almost no effort into finding ways to limit offensive ads placed over entertaining YouTube videos.

    1. Re:Oddly Enough... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wish they would let you give a thumbs up/down to the ads. Sure, even on the less insulting/annoying ads they would get 90% thumbs down, but the exact ratio of views to votes and total count would be extremely interesting.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Let's see... by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There's a show I really want to see. A GoT episode, a Firefly all-nighter, furry porn... doesn't matter.

    But. In order to watch the show, I have to let this neighbor family into the house to watch with me who has a track record of stealing stuff from my yard.

    Nah. Chances are I can watch the show another way, and if I can't, I'd still rather not pay some unknown, upfront cost for the pleasure.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  5. Fine by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
    Fine by me: less advertisements.

    Question to the advertisers: Where are you going to run your advertisements that has at least as many eyeballs as youtube? Let that sink in for a moment.

    You have the choice between not advertising or advertising. You can be lucky Google cares enough to cater to you needs.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Fine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Fine by me: less advertisements.

      And less money to jackoffs who make the videos. It's win-win, I agree.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Fine by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Most stuff on youtube isn't worth a dime any way... Hateful or not.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    3. Re:Fine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Most stuff on youtube isn't worth a dime any way... Hateful or not.

      I don't know about most stuff. I find the tutorials on how to do stuff around the house pretty useful when the washing machine won't drain. Also, there are some rare clips of musical performances from years gone by that are impossible to find anywhere else (Bill Evans Quartet playing in someone's living room in Finland comes to mind)

      But the videos advertisers are running away from are the ones where some guy in his mom's basement is looking into a camera and telling you his Very Important Opinions on why bitches are ruining video games or something.

      If you read some of the AC comments above "The blacks have lower IQs. FACT!" you get an idea of why the entire YouTube jackoff culture might turn off people with money to spend (advertisers). I'm not sure it's fair to blame Google or YouTube for the fact that the advertisers choose to look for other avenues.

      By the way, here is an excerpt from the Bill Evans video I referenced. For jazz musicians and fans, this is like finding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eddie Gomez is especially impressive on bass.

      https://youtu.be/wrWQndgX1QU

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Fine by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Fine by me: less advertisements.

      And less money to jackoffs who make the videos. It's win-win, I agree.

      I agree. If the video really deserves rewarding them, and they're making it in hopes of getting a reward, I can pay them through some sort of patronage site. They all seem to have links to those.

      Just because I watched at least n% of the video does not automatically mean they deserve some money, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to spend time as a service provider to do some activity to reward them.

      If they want to go to war over ads, and I end up only watching videos at archive.org, I'm OK with that. I enjoy some youtube content and if my income level goes up I'd probably subscribe. But I don't feel like I owe anything to anybody involved. If they really don't want me to use their content the way I want, they can use technical means to refrain from providing me the content. If they think it is a win for them, then they'll win.

      Traffic is cheap and storage is relatively cheap, there will always be places that host the free how-tos and stuff.

  6. Marketing Opportunity by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    That should drive ad prices lower for brands that are less susceptible to bullying by special interest groups, right?

    Is Google actually allowing market elasticity on ad prices? The biggest problem I see with being randomly assigned to whatever video is that it might be a sign of very poor targeting. I mean, white supremacists aren't likely to go out for Chinese food tonight, right? But they probably still need to buy laundry detergent .

    Nobody really thinks that Tide is refusing to sell detergent to these boorish idiots. I wonder who actually spends time watching their videos and thinks "well, Tide obviously supports their views." I find "reality TV" offensive to my sensibilities but the only connection I make there is that the advertisers want the audience's money.

    And there's the rub - thinking that attacking supply will eliminate demand is folly, but attacking demand is hard and the bullies are ultimately lazy.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Marketing Opportunity by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      It does lower the price of ads for those companies who aren't as picky.
      They are the only winners here. Content producers and Google are not happy because cheaper ads mean less money for them. As for viewers, they still see the same amount of advertisement.

    2. Re:Marketing Opportunity by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If the companies had been choosing offensive keywords, then those prices would come down.

      But they're not choosing offensive keywords. They're choosing totally clean keywords and the ads run next to offensive ads anyways. So the relative demand for a particular keyword is unaffected by any of this.

  7. The first step is admitting you have a problem by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

    Advertisements accompanying actual content should always require opting-in, not opting-out. Both on the producing/selling and consuming/purchasing sides.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    1. Re:The first step is admitting you have a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um. you DID opt-in, by using their service.

  8. Re: youtube has adds? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm pretty sure it has adds. And multiplies, and divides, and function calls, and object construction. Unless you use NoScript, of course.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  9. I'm still boycotting Advertisers.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    I'm still blocking all the ad's I can until the advertising networks start vetting their ad's and actually paying for real bandwidth. Almost every website loads twice as fast if you block the big ad network domains.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I'm still boycotting Advertisers.... by JenovaSynthesis · · Score: 1

      And take responsibility for the malicious crap that can come across their networks too. Forbes got nailed for this when a bunch of web security folks went there to read an article about a colleague, disabled adblockers per Forbes, and were promptly served up malware.

      --
      Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch :)
    2. Re:I'm still boycotting Advertisers.... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I'll try the webcache if it is linked from someplace like google news and they're doing a bait-and-switch on the bots to get the content linked.

      But if it still doesn't work, I wouldn't turn off the ad-blocker. You should always expect to get burned if you do. If the data is interesting, it is probably already mirrored somewhere or reported elsewhere.

      The only sites that important are ones that wouldn't have tried to stop my access in the first place.

  10. extremist clips promoting hate and violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Like Vet Ranch?

    Yeah, those educational and feel-good videos by extremist charity veterinary groups are really shameful.

    1. Re:extremist clips promoting hate and violence by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      ..and I wonder what groups are responsible for tarnishing that aspect of the constitution to a point where advertisers don't feel comfortable with it?

    2. Re:extremist clips promoting hate and violence by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Nope, try again.

    3. Re:extremist clips promoting hate and violence by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      (Reposted due to moderation abuse)

      Mass shooters mostly.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  11. Not going to work by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

    These companies don't understand that YouTube is not, and can never be, like traditional media. If anything, the marketing teams should be fired for a total, epic failure to even remotely understand the nature of the platform they were using.

    What I would tell Google to do is a few things to counteract.

    1. Allow anyone to monetize, provided their content is accurately self-rated along a ESRB-style rating system (with checkboxes for WHY it is rated that way).
    2. Create communities of interest such as "family," one for each major religion, etc. that help advertisers say "we want to coordinate an advertising campaign along all monetizing users by market." So if you're in "family," my wife isn't going to see the trailer for Satan Possesses and Rapes Your Dog 15 between kids videos which seems to happen every Halloween season.
    3. Be blunt: if you ain't making us money, your content is going to be lower in search results over content that is.
    4. Last, but not least, fire all of the damn SJWs. Easiest way to accomplish this: put out an anonymous workplace survey that says "do you consider hate speech that is not a direct incitement to violence to be protected, free speech." Anyone who disagrees with that probably holds views that are anathema to the long term health of any speech-centered tech platform or product.

    1. Re:Not going to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the point 4 makes you totally supporter of free speech - except speech you dislike. If you want free speech, you need to accept that people will disagree with you about everything including definition or need for free speech. That is what free speech is.

    2. Re:Not going to work by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      4. Last, but not least, fire all of the damn SJWs. Easiest way to accomplish this: put out an anonymous workplace survey that says "do you consider hate speech that is not a direct incitement to violence to be protected, free speech." Anyone who disagrees with that probably holds views that are anathema to the long term health of any speech-centered tech platform or product.

      This is what is wrong with most places today. That sort of thing should NOT be anonymous. Its should be mission statement from management. It should be made clear to employees that if they can't embrace that they ought to start looking for jobs elsewhere.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Not going to work by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Oh fuck off you blithering moron. Advertisers have been pushing around their weight for fucking ever. Jesus fucking Christ, you couldn't even show an interracial kiss on TV in the 1960s without most of a network's southern affiliates refusing to broadcast the fucking episode, because their advertisers would freak out and pull their ads.

      It's like people like you have lived in some weird bubble where you know absolutely fuck all about how the actual world fucking works. In an advertiser-supported platform, the advertisers are God, and if they decide that a topic is going to harm their brand, then they, as God, have the power to yank the advertising. Sometimes they do it for evil, such as trying to keep interracial kisses off the air half a century ago, and sometimes for good, as when they don't want their products associated with ISIS beheading videos or Neo-nazi fruitcakes. But they have the absolute authority to it, for better and for worse, and if you don't like it, start up your own video sharing service.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Not going to work by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Your supposition that Google wants money from people like you is inherently flawed. There's very little money to be made off of people like you. They're interesting in targeting people with real money, not mouth breathers who rely on government handouts.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Not going to work by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      >3. Be blunt: if you ain't making us money, your content is going to be lower in search results over content that is.

      Terrible idea. What makes YouTube great, or at least better, is that it ranks stuff based on interest and user interaction, rather than commercial considerations.

      >fire all of the damn SJWs

      Does that go for the ones making videos too? The Sargons and the Teal Dears?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  12. Ineffective and wrong. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    A $300 Million boycott on a company that made $79.38 billion in ad revenue last year isn't likely to get quite the attention these guys think it will. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure google put a middle manager in charge of dealing with these guys. He might even have access to the email address for someone who has something to do with ad placement.

    I think it's just another political stunt to try and manipulate social media into stifling free speech. I'm not saying I agree with the "hate" videos in question, but if you want to have free speech, then you've got to have free speech. sheesh.

    1. Re:Ineffective and wrong. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the people running this protest don't want there to be free speech. They want only speech they approve of to be allowed.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Ineffective and wrong. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I think it's just another political stunt to try and manipulate social media into stifling free speech. I'm not saying I agree with the "hate" videos in question, but if you want to have free speech, then you've got to have free speech. sheesh.

      The problem of course, is that what is offensive has already creeped into areas that are not particularly offensive, unless people consider everything that does not agree with them as offensive.

      Another issue is that people tend to frame their arguments as a liberal versus conservative based thing. Both the far left and far right are guilty.

      And now it has extended into areas which are merely political in nature, not remotely violent, say like "The Young Turks", or "An Ear for Men". areas where the loudest and most easily offended agents of outrage will show up. Its "Ermaherd! Ir'm Errfernderd!

      And possibly self defeating. There is a reason why Bill Maher is doing very well on HBO. Their funding model is direct, and he can bring his humor/political commentary out to mentally mature audiences who don't need self validation. He's an equal opportunity pisser-offer who makes you think. And it seems that HBO knows how many people are watching.

      Self defeating indeed. So where will advertisers peddle their shit when everyone has gone to direct support models? Because no matter what is being presented, it's gonna piss someone off. Personally, I'm kind of offended by laxative commercials on cooking shows. When we all know that's why God created Taco Bell.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Ineffective and wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. YouTube didn't make $79.38 billion in ad revenue last year. Google did. YouTube is a subsidiary company of Google and should be independently attempting to maximize its profits.

      2. The boycott has (unfortunately) actually been quite successful at forcing YouTube to change their advertising policies, since they have removed ad revenue from most channels that are "alt right" or "alt light".

    4. Re:Ineffective and wrong. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They are corporate ad buyers... They don't get much more conservative than that. That's why people are protesting, they are upset than make up tips for trans women videos are being demonetized because of corporate transphobia.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Ineffective and wrong. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      unless people consider everything that does not agree with them as offensive.

      I believe that's pretty much what's going on in the world. Of course, there are always exceptions but generally it's this.

    6. Re:Ineffective and wrong. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      All I have to say in response to this is that you clearly have not been paying attention if you think corporate ad buyers are conservative.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  13. confused by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Aren't people who support extremism and violence some of Walmart's biggest customers? Confused.

  14. And....? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "Advertisers Are Still Boycotting YouTube Over Offensive Videos"

    As is their right to do.

    Youtube has the right to advertise, and people have the right to boycott products and services that they don't like or that support things they don't like. What's the problem?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:And....? by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Why do you people always show up? Nobody is debating they have the LEGAL RIGHT to do any goddamn thing.

      We're debating whether it's ETHICALLY right, as well whether it's an EFFECTIVE solution to their problem.

      Fuck off with Red Herring bullshit.

      This is like that other over-used Slashdot argument, "Freedom of speech is only for the government!" (conflating the constitutional Bill of Rights _acknowledgement_ of Freedom of Speech with the actual _invention_ of the idea which goes all the way back to ancient Athens, Greece and has nothing to do with legislative government but instead societal values.)

      People on Slashdot need to up their game instead of up-modding fallacious arguments.

    2. Re:And....? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Why do you people always show up?

      Because people like you are assholes, that's why.

      Fuck off with Red Herring bullshit.

      Fuck off yourself, goober.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  15. Just have a whitelist by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    Have advertisers opt in to a video/channel whitelist. Problem solved. Better to get some revenue than none.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:Just have a whitelist by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You still have to police the videos, because it's not like the automated systems can tell with any reliability if you've put a Neo-nazi video in the Cute Fwuffy Bunny Video channel.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. I don't bother by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the ads are mostly skippable anyway and 5 seconds so a youtuber can get some revenue doesn't bug me.

    I have definitely noticed. I'm shopping for my kid's first car and you'd think after the google searches I've done I'd be inundated with car ads. But I think I've seen one. Hell, at one point I googled the ad to see if I could trigger it and no go.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't bother by johanw · · Score: 1

      That means you've forgotten to activate a tracker blocker too.

  17. I gotta agree with the advertisers here by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because saying "Coke advertises with Neo-Nazis!" makes a great headline. Hell, we're talking about it now. It's too click-baity, so it was bound to go viral if youtube didn't kill it with fire.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. The statement may be factual but usage is racist by aepervius · · Score: 2

    See the problem is that it is well known that IQ test are actually very strongly cultural and educational, and testing 2 populations of different cultures, can lead to irrelevant result comparison. And this is the case here, people are getting from that that black are unintelligent or whatever, but the is almost certainly the wrong conclusion, as normal population, with normal education, should have the same "intelligence". The correct conclusion is that there are obstacle (cultural, wealth and institutional) to the education of black people in the US and that the test comparison show that, and nothing else.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  19. So short GOOG stock? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    easy money?

  20. Offensive videos? by piojo · · Score: 1

    Offensive videos? Like Pewdiepie making fun of white supremecists? Cowardice is the only excuse for interpreting his video as antisemitic. Fear of stupid customers misinterpreting statements. These companies are surely too big to care about being respected, but I respect companies that have more spine.

    --
    A cat can't teach a dog to bark.