As Reddit protests turn to porn-bombing, advertisers face increasing brand safety concerns

abff08f4813c@kbin.social to Reddit Migration@kbin.social – 240 points – As Reddit protests turn to porn-bombing, advertisers face increasing brand safety concerns
thedrum.com

Protests on the social platform have entered a new phase, with users shirking the platform’s NSFW content rules en masse. The development has some media buyers on high alert, experts say.

75

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

YouTube also significantly restricts the reach of demonetised content, though. It becomes very unlikely for even people who are subscribed to your channel to see your new uploads.

Still not free speech at all. You're pointing out the difference between being able to speak freely and being provided an audience. There are no nations in history or philosophers in humanity which supposed the existence of a human right to provide an audience to everyone.

But again, YouTube isn't a free speech platform. The public sidewalk is, YouTube isn't. They have no obligation to provide you anything at all.

This is undoubtedly true. YouTube is a private entity and there is no legal obligation for them to treat speech equally. But it is subjectively troubling that YouTube, a virtual monopoly, has little qualms about directly shaping the political discourse on its platform, censoring and limiting the reach of content about LGBT people while Fox News is on the front page.

They are absolutely no where close to a virtual monopoly. Anyone can upload and stream content online, and probably millions of websites allow it now, without exaggeration. What they have is a prefab audience. There are no considerations needed for free speech whatsoever.

If you want to influence their moderation habits, you need to be their customer or better yet, their shareholder. As just another leeching user, your voice means nothing to them and frankly that isn't problematic. 10,000 leeches won't influence them the same as one paying customer. I can guarantee that. And again, if you're just a leech then it really is no wonder why they wouldn't listen as a for-profit business.

There are troubling bits about lots of platforms and media outlets and companies, but that's not an excuse to twist up legal terminologies like monopoly or free speech in order to make weak criticisms. Doing so weakens the framework of law more than it does influence YouTube at all. Because that framework of law is only as valid as we use it. Countless examples of that problem abound - virtually the entirety of the Trump presidency is an example of why misuse of the law in common discussions among people is actually very dangerous. That's been a sticking point for me for a long time, and it's more important as years go by. So I'm gonna call it out, especially when it's happening on "my" team.

If you're gonna make accusations where we actually have legal recourse (like monopolies) then you need to understand them. There is no where close to a real monopoly in YouTube.

And obviously you're deincentivising the creator from making more content in that certain style at least. Steering the speech to certain direction.

Youtube is allowed to encourage you to say things. That's guaranteed by the free speech rights of the people that make up youtube.

No one's saying they aren't. Doesn't mean I have to like it either. Or that their decisions can't be criticized.

Making comments on YouTube videos, or making YouTube videos themselves =/= speech.

What is it then?

Content creation.

If YouTube shuts down indefinitely in a couple hours without warning; do you believe that you've lost the right of speech?!?!

Tf are you talking about?

JFC... are you this daft or just trolling? I'll map out this entire conversation because you're not able to keep up with your own BS and then I'm done with you.

This started because you made a claim that YouTube demonetizing things = "companies fiddling with speech."

Then, before I ever responded to you, the next comment that you made was "Free speech usually means that you have freedom to express yourself, not that you're speaking for no pay lol."

So it started off sounding like you were equating demonetization with a lack of free speech. I replied, _"To be honest, I'm not sure why YouTube was brought into a conversation about free speech. YouTube is not a free speech platform; thus, demonetization of someone on YouTube's platform has nothing at all to do with free speech."

Then you wanted to move the goalposts, so you said, "This conversation wasn't about free speech, it was about companies fiddling with speech." as you removed the word "free." You have the ability to NOT post on YouTube. YouTube CANNOT "fiddle with speech" if you do not participate in YouTube. Anything you put on there is content that they own. If somehow, some employee of YouTube starts following you around and setting off a bullhorn anytime you start to talk, I'll agree, then they're "fiddling with speech." If some employee of YouTube (Alphabet), starts coming on to Kbin or Lemmy, and removing your comments from here, then I'll agree with you in that scenario too. When an employee of YouTube is removing comments or not promoting comments that they don't like, that's not a speech issue; it's content moderation.