America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by izonfire. 59 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
youtube demonetizes cigar related channels...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
clintCigar Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 12:03 PM EST
Joined: 05-14-2019
Posts: 4,682
https://halfwheel.com/youtube-demonetizes-cigar-related-channels


Mad Mad Mad Mad

izonfire Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 12:07 PM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
More PC bullchit.
dstieger Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 12:25 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
No fan of Google. But as a private company, I support their right to choose not to pay whomever they want.
I don't think that YT has ANY responsibility to pay somebody, whether they bring more eyeballs or not.
izonfire Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 12:54 PM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
dstieger wrote:
No fan of Google. But as a private company, I support their right to choose not to pay whomever they want.
I don't think that YT has ANY responsibility to pay somebody, whether they bring more eyeballs or not.



Yeah, but being a global monopoly,
do you support their right to self-censorship in any and all cases?

"He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses."
dstieger Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 1:11 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
So.....(true to form) I'm going to have to first challenge the question and the assumptions....

I am unsure about the monopoly part. I get that the market share is massive and that Alphabet can 'improperly' leverage Google and other tools to make it even more unbalanced. However, I suspect there are reasonable alternative hosting options. And I hope that remains the case.

I don't even know what self-censorship means. I try to restrict my use of the word 'censor' to government 'control' or other regulatory heavy handed influence.

So, to sort of answer your question, I guess I do support YT's right to demonetize anything they choose. Did they flag, censor, remove, or restrict the videos in question? Did they simply choose to stop paying them money that they have no obligation to pay them? Was there a contract broken? Serious questions...I don't know anything about this story, or really about yt monetization, in general.

That said, I do agree with your underlying point, that Google has, for years, been in a position to affect thoughts, beliefs, actions in ways that scare me. Scare me because I don't think 95+% of Google users know or care...and scare me because I don't know what it might take for Google (and Facebook) to earn my trust....not sure they know, either
grmcooper Offline
#6 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 1:16 PM EST
Joined: 10-10-2006
Posts: 20,430
It's Disney.
izonfire Offline
#7 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 2:58 PM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
dstieger wrote:
So.....(true to form) I'm going to have to first challenge the question and the assumptions....

I am unsure about the monopoly part. I get that the market share is massive and that Alphabet can 'improperly' leverage Google and other tools to make it even more unbalanced. However, I suspect there are reasonable alternative hosting options. And I hope that remains the case.


Yes, I imagine there are other alternatives, but 99.9% of eyes are on Google and YT. That's a tremendous amount of control over what's seen and what is not. Is it all capitalistic, or are there decisions made based on the corporation's moral agenda? I don't know. That's a helluva lot of power in one entity's hands.

dstieger wrote:
I don't even know what self-censorship means. I try to restrict my use of the word 'censor' to government 'control' or other regulatory heavy handed influence.


I mean any action taken by them that is not in purely economic in nature. Placement or availability of certain group's information, messages or propaganda, regardless of how subtle it may be.

dstieger wrote:
So, to sort of answer your question, I guess I do support YT's right to demonetize anything they choose. Did they flag, censor, remove, or restrict the videos in question?


I don't know. But if they choose to, who is going to stop them???

dstieger wrote:
Did they simply choose to stop paying them money that they have no obligation to pay them? Was there a contract broken? Serious questions...I don't know anything about this story, or really about yt monetization, in general.


They have no real obligation to pay anybody anything. And by choosing to demonetize a singular category, such as cigar related videos, what is the actual intent?

dstieger wrote:
That said, I do agree with your underlying point, that Google has, for years, been in a position to affect thoughts, beliefs, actions in ways that scare me. Scare me because I don't think 95+% of Google users know or care...and scare me because I don't know what it might take for Google (and Facebook) to earn my trust....not sure they know, either


It seems to me they have close to complete control over their market. Vids placed initially and more prominently get more views. Having the potential to sway public opinion in the direction they choose. Demonetizing certain ones will decrease their prominence and abundance.

To what extent is it happening? I don't know.
Will it become a bigger concern in the future? That's a good question...

And who will stop them anyway?
ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 3:38 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
So they’re making monetary decisions in a political manor, that’s the reason for the outrage and the apathy.

If you don’t see that you’re choosing to.
CelticBomber Offline
#9 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 5:21 PM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
My problem with it is that it was Youtube who offered content creators money in the first place. Use our service to build your channel and we'll pay you! People jumped on board, built huge followings getting eyes on Youtube's ad's and then Youtube turns around and says sorry but we don't need you anymore. It's not like these people can just jump to another service and bring their audience with them.... Youtube knows that. This demonetization drive started well over two years ago when the snowflakes started to complain about channels with conservative slants. Then it was channels who questioned third wave feminism. It's just gone down hill from there getting more politically correct by the second.
clintCigar Offline
#10 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 6:12 PM EST
Joined: 05-14-2019
Posts: 4,682
izonfire wrote:
More PC bullchit.


https://youtu.be/MsqwAaiVHok
Sunoverbeach Offline
#11 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 6:39 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,665
As long as they remove any and all ads from said videos, I'll take an irritated on principle stance but ultimately whatever. If they still run ads and that generate revenue for YT but don't pay out like they do for others, then I call BS
pacman357 Offline
#12 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 7:43 PM EST
Joined: 02-27-2006
Posts: 42,596
More like "demonizes". It's all part of the government plan to save us from ourselves. I have a few observations.

1. Tobacco will exist even when you cover your ears, close your eyes and yell LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
2. Taking vape pens from teens may seem like a good idea, but guess what many are likely to switch to? Yup, cigarettes.
3. Taking vape pens away from everyone (I'm looking at you San Francisco, and soon to be Seattle) is infantile and simply harms local merchants. Vape pens are available elsewhere, idiots.
4. Before we continue the assault on vape pens, can we please find out if they are even unsafe? Jeebus, people are acting like they are grenades.
5. No kid buys $10 cigars. Adults by age 21 are generally aware of the existence of cigars. Exactly who are you saving?
6. Priorities. I have no trouble paying 37% tax on weed, but I have trouble reconciling that with the same state's STILL set rate of 95% tax on pipe tobacco. That is not a typo.
7. This nonsense is almost always knee-jerk, with little or no thought behind it. OMG, cigars exist? Let's act like they don't, then they will all go away.
8. Disney banned smoking anywhere inside the park? Great, yet another reason to NEVER go back. Suck it, Disney. Also feeling less compelled to watch ABC, ESPN, Pixar schlock, etc.
9. If they cancelled existing contracts and violated any poster's rights, this is an employment opportunity for a whole bunch of lawyers. On behalf of the profession, thank you.
10. Cbid rules prohibit me from posting what I wanted to say in #10. It contains a lot of bad words.
izonfire Offline
#13 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 8:14 PM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
pacman357 wrote:
More like "demonizes".


That's it exactly.
ZRX1200 Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 8:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Pacman is a wise fog
pacman357 Offline
#15 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 9:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-27-2006
Posts: 42,596
ZRX1200 wrote:
Pacman is a wise fog

Hey, that's slander. I'll sue!
Pudding Mittens Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Jun 27 2019, 11:44 PM EST
Joined: 08-15-2016
Posts: 1,291
pacman357 wrote:
7. This nonsense is almost always knee-jerk, with little or no thought behind it. OMG, cigars exist? Let's act like they don't, then they will all go away.

My personal favorite brain-dead, no-thought, knee-jerk leftist idea is the gun ban. The idea is that violent thugs and nutjobs who ignore all laws, even murder and mass-murder laws, are going to somehow magically obey THIS law and turn in all their guns. That of course is idiotic. What actually happens is they keep their guns, good people turn theirs in, and now the still-armed violent thugs have a government-issued guarantee that all their prey are now helpless and can't resist or fight back... which is a gigantic, tragic worsening of the situation, not an improvement.
.
izonfire Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 12:02 AM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
Pudding Mittens wrote:
What actually happens is they keep their guns, good people turn theirs in, and now the still-armed violent thugs have a government-issued guarantee that all their prey are now helpless and can't resist or fight back... which is a gigantic, tragic worsening of the situation, not an improvement.
.


So simple a concept, even a left wing extremist could understand that.
Or so you would think
clintCigar Offline
#18 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 12:13 AM EST
Joined: 05-14-2019
Posts: 4,682
Pudding Mittens wrote:
My personal favorite brain-dead, no-thought, knee-jerk leftist idea is the gun ban. The idea is that violent thugs and nutjobs who ignore all laws, even murder and mass-murder laws, are going to somehow magically obey THIS law and turn in all their guns. That of course is idiotic. What actually happens is they keep their guns, good people turn theirs in, and now the still-armed violent thugs have a government-issued guarantee that all their prey are now helpless and can't resist or fight back... which is a gigantic, tragic worsening of the situation, not an improvement.
.


Amen!

Definitely a topic for discussion in Cigar Church
USNGunner Offline
#19 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 12:16 AM EST
Joined: 05-17-2019
Posts: 4,402
Pudding Mittens wrote:
My personal favorite brain-dead, no-thought, knee-jerk leftist idea is the gun ban. The idea is that violent thugs and nutjobs who ignore all laws, even murder and mass-murder laws, are going to somehow magically obey THIS law and turn in all their guns. That of course is idiotic. What actually happens is they keep their guns, good people turn theirs in, and now the still-armed violent thugs have a government-issued guarantee that all their prey are now helpless and can't resist or fight back... which is a gigantic, tragic worsening of the situation, not an improvement.
.



Huzzah!
dstieger Offline
#20 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 9:42 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Youtube is not the government....in fact it is pretty much the opposite of the government.

If I own a media hosting site, I'd like to think that I get nearly 100% control over what goes on and whether or not I want to pay someone who brings traffic. There's probably some worthy discussion about certain protected classes or speech, but even then, protecting from right to publish isn't the same as protecting some assumed right to profit on my site.

Pretty sure that Disney isn't the government, either.

So...they make monetary decisions in a political manor....I was going to say I don't GAF, but actually, I think that I GAF enough to support their choice to do so


If the real issue turns out to be that they are a vital resource and a monopoly, then that's a different issue that can/should be addressed....but not by telling them who they should pay and how much
opelmanta1900 Offline
#21 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 9:58 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Where this gets messy for me is the Google relationship...

In my opinion, Google is what makes YouTube a monopoly... You can start a video streaming service with all the best content and blow YouTube out of the water with quality and fairness and paying your content creators...

Google will never let that site appear on their search results... At least not until half a million YouTube options pop up first...

The argument could be made that a new search engine could be created... How you gonna find out about it? You gonna Google it?

opelmanta1900 Offline
#22 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
And the first person who mentions Bing as an acceptable Google alternative is gonna get their nutsack put into a meat grinder...
victor809 Offline
#23 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 10:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
And the first person who mentions Bing as an acceptable Google alternative is gonna get their nutsack put into a meat grinder...


While I hate bing... (and was forced to use it in China, where you cannot get google)... complaining that google will not allow a competitor to youtube to be found is not really germane.

I agree with dstieg... if you think google/youtube is so omnipresent that they pose a problem, that's a different issue than complaining about what they will pay for.

I mean... we're not even talking about youtube silencing the content... they're just not willing to pay someone for it.

That's.... nonsense....

Think for a moment about what this initial thread is... a private company does not want to pay to show something. They're still willing to give the content creator a platform (which I would say is still their right to deny the platform)... they just don't want to pay to encourage more of that content.

That's some serious millennial snowflake bullsh3t that the OP thinks any crap content they want should be paid for by youtube.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#24 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 10:32 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I think you're missing the greater issue... YouTube paid these people for this content... They had agreements in place...

They still want this content... They still host this content... They still make money off of this content... They just don't pay for it... And they know they can do this because they have a ________...

Can you fit any word into that blank other than monopoly and still have it be true?
dstieger Offline
#25 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 10:38 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Was monetization of cigar related vids pulled because Youtube adopted some sort of nicotine-free policy?

Or, have the actual advertisers asked that their ads not be shown before/during cigar related videos?

Does it make a difference?
victor809 Offline
#26 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 10:45 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
I think you're missing the greater issue... YouTube paid these people for this content... They had agreements in place...

They still want this content... They still host this content... They still make money off of this content... They just don't pay for it... And they know they can do this because they have a ________...

Can you fit any word into that blank other than monopoly and still have it be true?



Remember, they are still hosting the person's videos. They are providing a service to the content creators (hosting) and as such, there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to advertise. It's the same thing we see with facebook.

I'm willing to bet that all agreements for monetization in place allow for renegotiation... it isn't like they are breaking something they agreed to do in-perpetuity.

Hell, I have some videos on youtube.. I don't get any money for them. I'm sure if someone watches them they will see ads around the site.

As for your quote above.... what you're missing is that it's likely not a "and they know they can..." it's probably "and it doesn't really matter to them because these are not major revenue generators"
opelmanta1900 Offline
#27 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 10:57 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
That last part you said isn't true... I follow a bunch of YouTubers that hunt and fish... Most with a million plus subscribers... If they show an animal bleed or die - even a fish - they are demonitized...

As for dsteigers question, most the advertisers on these videos are for hunting and fishing companies... I sincerely doubt they've made any request to be exempted from advertising on such content...
victor809 Offline
#28 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 11:10 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
.... don't think you're right there opel.
I just did a quick search in youtube... hunting channel... grabbed the top result and that channel only has 200k subscribers. "million plus" might be a bit off.

And even then.... that's not likely a lot of money to youtube. They have so many content providers... and they are making some money off of every single one.

But in the end... my point still stands. Someone was whining because a company chose not to pay to have some content they didn't want to promote. They didn't even take away the guy's access to their platform... they just don't want to promote it.

opelmanta1900 Offline
#29 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 12:15 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Lunkers Tv, apbassing, LakeForkGuy, Jon B... That's just a few off the top of my head... You gotta get off the bing man... It's messin with your results...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#30 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 12:18 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
And your point doesn't stand... They still promote the content... They just don't pay the creator...
victor809 Offline
#31 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 12:48 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Lunkers Tv, apbassing, LakeForkGuy, Jon B... That's just a few off the top of my head... You gotta get off the bing man... It's messin with your results...


Ok, a couple of those are at 1MM.... I actually searched within youtube, so I dunno why they didn't pop up
victor809 Offline
#32 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 12:53 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
And your point doesn't stand... They still promote the content... They just don't pay the creator...


What's your point?

That's like the entire business model of any social media platform.

The people who were being paid were the anomaly. They started their channels not being paid... at some point youtube said "hey... you have so many views we would like to pay you".... then at another later point, they said "hey... we don't want to pay you to show what you're showing"

So.... what's your point?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#33 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 12:58 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
With anything else, when you get the "we don't want to pay you for your product anymore" you take your product elsewhere... But when a monopoly like YouTube is involved, there is no one else, YouTube knows it, and that is what drives them to demonitize...
victor809 Offline
#34 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 1:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
With anything else, when you get the "we don't want to pay you for your product anymore" you take your product elsewhere... But when a monopoly like YouTube is involved, there is no one else, YouTube knows it, and that is what drives them to demonitize...


So you're saying youtube should be forced to pay anyone who wants to post any videos on their site?

Or are you saying that once youtube makes the decision to pay someone for content, they should be forced to continue paying said content provider forever, regardless of the content?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#35 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 1:23 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I'm saying the HankHides Corporation has suffered a lot of discrimination at the hands of social media companies and we ain't gonna stand for it no more!
victor809 Offline
#36 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 1:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
You could be close to right, if this were something the content creator couldn't control for...... race/gender/sexual orientation.... but it's a hobby. We can't force a business to pay for some dude to sit around and smoke a cigar and say whatever dumb thing he says (I have never watched them, and can't bring myself to care, but I'm gonna assume it's on the same intellectual level as this place)...

hell... in this society, if he got lung cancer, his lawyers would probably tell him to sue google because they promoted his unhealthy habit by monetizing it.

They are allowed to make money off anything you post up there. It's in the user agreements... I'm sure it says something like "we own all your content now, and f-k off".... we accept that agreement the instant we post something. Whining later that it's not advantageous is.... millennial. Like those kids that want their student loans paid off simply because they aren't making enough from their degree.... they signed the agreement, they made the deal with all the information in front of them.
victor809 Offline
#37 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 1:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
I'm saying the HankHides Corporation has suffered a lot of discrimination at the hands of social media companies and we ain't gonna stand for it no more!


sorry your tumblr page got censored for sexually explicit content.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#38 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 1:30 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I would agree with what you're saying, if not for the Google/YouTube relationship...

Because theoretically, all the sportsman who are being demonitized could start a HuntingTube or FishingTube... For a long time I thought that's what they should do...

But Google can simply not list those sites, right? Private company, if they don't want to promote certain sites, they don't have to, right?
victor809 Offline
#39 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 1:34 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
I would agree with what you're saying, if not for the Google/YouTube relationship...

Because theoretically, all the sportsman who are being demonitized could start a HuntingTube or FishingTube... For a long time I thought that's what they should do...

But Google can simply not list those sites, right? Private company, if they don't want to promote certain sites, they don't have to, right?


So again... what's your point?

Do you want google/YT to be forced to provide income to anyone who wants to post videos?

You realize what the "demonetization" means right? From the article: "YouTube has unveiled an updated policy regarding types of content that it will not display ads on, which now includes tobacco-related content. Demonetization is a process where YouTube removes its hosted ads on content, either specific videos or whole channels."
They are no longer embedding and selling ad space, possibly because they couldn't sell it (or it cost too much to categorize and track it separately)....

Would you rather they just take the videos down and refuse to provide hosting services?
victor809 Offline
#40 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 1:37 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I'm not disagreeing that there's a fundamental .... question... as to how well anyone would succeed in creating a competing hosting site....

But that's only relevant if your solution to our problem is to nationalize google.
izonfire Offline
#41 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 3:09 PM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
victor809 wrote:
That's some serious millennial snowflake bullsh3t that the OP thinks any crap content they want should be paid for by youtube.


OUCH. Harsh statement there. I think the OP has a valid point.

Viewership to sites brings revenue through advertising.
As an incentive, YT pays the content creators a percentage to create even more viewership, thus more revenue.
By demonetizing, it seems YT has chosen to discriminate against a certain segment of the community.
What is the rationale???

That is the point.

Nationalization doesn't help anything.
Creating competition through genuine alternatives does.
Anti-trust legislation was created for a very good reason.
victor809 Offline
#42 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 3:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
izonfire wrote:

By demonetizing, it seems YT has chosen to discriminate against a certain segment of the community.



Correct.

People mistake discriminating against a person for what they are (race/gender/sexuality) for discriminating against a person for what they do. One is not ok. The other is called "making a decision"

YT was never under an obligation to monetize those channels in the first place. Just as reebok isn't under an obligation to put advertisements at the front of every video on the "Fat guy farts on things" channel. Advertisers will make a decision on what sort of content they want associated with their brand... YT decides what content it thinks it can sell.... And in making a decision, we frequently discriminate against people with bad ideas. Trying to make ad money off videos on how to smoke cigars is a bad idea in this climate. There's no reason google has to follow that guy down the dumb rabbit hole.

There's a community of people dressed as horses and pulling carriages around. The existence of this community does not guarantee that they should be monetized if they post videos on YT.
DrafterX Offline
#43 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 3:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Brony freaks... Not talking
victor809 Offline
#44 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 3:28 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
Brony freaks... Not talking


I wasnt talking about that community, I was talking more the black leather and whips and bits one...... but there's those too....

None of these communities deserve to be monetized simply by existing.
izonfire Offline
#45 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 3:56 PM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
victor809 wrote:
YT was never under an obligation to monetize those channels in the first place.


They aren't under any obligation to monetize any channel, period.
I'm just glad they have made a decision with society's best interests in mind.

I look forward to more of that guidance in the future...
victor809 Offline
#46 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 5:19 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
... they made a decision with what they (I'm assuming) think is their best interest in mind. They didn't tell society whatt to do... They aren't actively suppressing anything. They're literally just not paying some lazy bastards to smoke cigars and talk.

I swear...this place is full of drama queens
opelmanta1900 Offline
#47 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 6:03 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Despite the title of this thread and what I now see are numerous references to the title, I didn't realize this was about cigar videos being demonitized...

How they got monetized in the first place is actually a little baffling...
izonfire Offline
#48 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 7:01 PM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
victor809 wrote:
... they made a decision with what they (I'm assuming) think is their best interest in mind. They didn't tell society whatt to do...


Perhaps it was a moral judgement. And if so, I don't find that acceptable.

victor809 wrote:
They aren't actively suppressing anything. They're literally just not paying some lazy bastards to smoke cigars and talk.


Yep.
And in doing so, they just placed them in the seat right next to you.
Complete injustice.

victor809 wrote:
I swear...this place is full of drama queens


Ahhh.
A true queen - there can only be one...
pacman357 Offline
#49 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 8:49 PM EST
Joined: 02-27-2006
Posts: 42,596
dstieger wrote:
Youtube is not the government....in fact it is pretty much the opposite of the government.

If I own a media hosting site, I'd like to think that I get nearly 100% control over what goes on and whether or not I want to pay someone who brings traffic. There's probably some worthy discussion about certain protected classes or speech, but even then, protecting from right to publish isn't the same as protecting some assumed right to profit on my site.

Pretty sure that Disney isn't the government, either.

So...they make monetary decisions in a political manor....I was going to say I don't GAF, but actually, I think that I GAF enough to support their choice to do so


If the real issue turns out to be that they are a vital resource and a monopoly, then that's a different issue that can/should be addressed....but not by telling them who they should pay and how much

You are correct m all points. I fear that some folks who follow the president think that every time someone criticizes them or bans them from a business's site that the action somehow violates the First Amendment. The very first sentence in the FA starts "Congress shall make no law...". Somehow Trump and his ilk think that the FA applies to Twitter. It just effing doesn't. While the SCOTUS has held that the amendment extends to various governmental and quasi-governmental entities, Twitter can ban whomever they like so long as they don't violate law(s) that apply to them. For example, banning people because of their gender, race, etc., would likely not withstand legal challenges on much of any level. Banning people because they use language you don't approve of, or because they are costing you advertisers, or because they promote a product which you don't want promoted on your site is all within the bounds of what the law allows, again with the caveat that you cannot break certain laws in doing so. Banning hate mongers certainly is allowed. So is banning all tobacco advertising.

One of the great things about our Constitution, however, is that we also have the right to beotch, as long as we don't break law(s) while doing so. "You people suck because....", generally allowed. "I'm going to harm someone you love" is not. There are some fine lines in there at times, but this isn't one of them. However, saying "I'm not going to patronize your business because I don't care for your politics, policies, etc." is totally reasonable and protected free speech. I think that is what most people here are doing (I'm not going to research every post).
pacman357 Offline
#50 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2019, 8:54 PM EST
Joined: 02-27-2006
Posts: 42,596
Fifty! What did I win?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top