The Skeptic Community - Pseudo-intellectuals ranting on Youtube

[Feline Darkmage]

Anybody keeping up with the current Steve Shives dramu? To put a long story short Steve is salty a convention for open dialogue has invited sh0eonhead, armoured skeptic and Sargon of akkad to participate at the event.
Unsurprisingly everything that Steve's wife told him to say to mythcon has fallen on deaf ears and they are still going ahead with the talks.

I just made a whole thread inspired by that shit. Get ready for more layers to your pseudo-intellectual dipsittery. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/anti-anti-sjws-anti-sargonism.33488/

 

[ZZ 932]

Ahhh, the good ol' "skeptic" community. Redefining the word "skeptic" the same way Tumbltards redefined the word "literally" to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means.

Did anyone else see Kraut and Tea's dramawhoring video about some Twitter bullshit no one cares about? The best part are the "skeptics" eating him alive in the comments section. Half of them sound like they just came in from /pol/, which is even funnier. The lack of self-awareness with these people is both astounding and hilarious.

 

[Pikapool]

 

[ICametoLurk]

I just remembered that the Dilbert cartoon show made fun of skeptics in one episode, the black hole episode, way back around 1999.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I've never noticed before but while I was watching a video that was supposed to be about the firing of that Goolag employee, only to end up using it as a segue to link sexual dimorphism to career choices. Usually when this happens, I get bored and click off the video thinking "just another generic anti-sjw shill".

This time, the shift from one topic to the anti-feminist dimorphism was so blatant that I actually realized that all the skeptic channels seem to be doing it. Are they just lamely ripping off each other or do we need to start #SkepticGate? It's funny that most of these former Gamergators seem to all share the same perspectives on the same topics, almost like a script is being passed around for everybody to use.

Nah, it's just laziness.

 

[BurnerRobot]

I've never noticed before but while I was watching a video that was supposed to be about the firing of that Goolag employee, only to end up using it as a segue to link sexual dimorphism to career choices. Usually when this happens, I get bored and click off the video thinking "just another generic anti-sjw shill".

This time, the shift from one topic to the anti-feminist dimorphism was so blatant that I actually realized that all the skeptic channels seem to be doing it. Are they just lamely ripping off each other or do we need to start #SkepticGate? It's funny that most of these former Gamergators seem to all share the same perspectives on the same topics, almost like a script is being passed around for everybody to use.

Nah, it's just laziness.

They probably just wait for Sargon or one of the other big ones to make a video on it and then regurgitate what he said.

 

[LtCucumber]

So clearly people still give a shit about the "adpocalypse" but are calling it censorship. Now I'm certain that yes, youtube and the people who work for them have political leanings, but people like andywarski are probably not being targeted for having an anti-sjw channel or similar.

Spoiler: 8 min long victim complex and sperg from our good friend Andy

Seriously I'm kinda done with everyone - or everyone who is anti sjw blaming it on censorship. censorship this, censorship that,

Spoiler: or as Blaire White calls it...

Now, Theryn Meyer has already summed this up really well, and Blaire White at least had the decency to say it's not just her but makes her demonetization a big ass deal, like "everyone is facing ramifications right now for expressing their opinion and this is ours" (by that I'm assuming she means anti-sjw channels.)

It's not just anti-sjws, but it seems as though they're treating it as such. As Meyer pointed out, Jenna Marbles has been hit by the dreaded adpocalypse. She puts out comedy videos that aren't even remotely controversial, yet videos of hers aren't monetized.
I feel like I'm shadowing Theryn here, but youtube is a company. You know what companies do? Make money. If I was an advertiser who needed ads on family friendly or not as explicit content, then yes, i'd demonetize people like Jenna and Andy, who curse a lot in their videos, even people like Blaire white who do take things too far when it comes to criticism.

But besides all that, the thing is, freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to support shit. Hell, I could express my opinion at work, and if the boss thinks it's bad for the workplace, that person I'm employed by can fire me. they doesn't have to support me- freedom of speech means the government can't bitch about it or get me in trouble for it. If a certain company doesn't want to put money towards your opinion if they disagree with you, they are free to do that. It's stupid, but they can do what the fuck they want.

They bitch about censorship but want to do that to liberals. Like they're going on about "freedom of speech applies to those who don't agree with you; stupid liberals" to support themselves but don't practice what they preach because people "think incorrectly" by their own standards.

Andy's sperg-fest really has proven that Antis and SJWs are one in the same. When one doesn't get their way, they make a scene and throw a tantrum similar to one a toddler would.

 

[BurnerRobot]

The "Adpocalypse" isn't censorship. They're not taking the videos down, they're demonetizing them. They're not stopping these people from airing their views, they're stopping them from getting money for it.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

So clearly people still give a shit about the "adpocalypse" but are calling it censorship. Now I'm certain that yes, youtube and the people who work for them have political leanings, but people like andywarski are probably not being targeted for having an anti-sjw channel or similar.

Spoiler: 8 min long victim complex and sperg from our good friend Andy

Seriously I'm kinda done with everyone - or everyone who is anti sjw blaming it on censorship. censorship this, censorship that,

Spoiler: or as Blaire White calls it...

Now, Theryn Meyer has already summed this up really well, and Blaire White at least had the decency to say it's not just her but makes her demonetization a big ass deal, like "everyone is facing ramifications right now for expressing their opinion and this is ours" (by that I'm assuming she means anti-sjw channels.

It's not just anti-sjws, but it seems as though they're treating it as such. As Meyer pointed out, Jenna Marbles has been hit by the dreaded adpocalypse. She puts out comedy videos that aren't even remotely controversial, yet videos of hers aren't monetized.
I feel like I'm shadowing Theryn here, but youtube is a company. You know what companies do? Make money. If I was an advertiser who needed ads on family friendly or not as explicit content, then yes, i'd demonetize people like Jenna and Andy, who curse a lot in their videos, even people like Blaire white who do take things too far when it comes to criticism.

But besides all that, the thing is, freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to support shit. Hell, I could express my opinion at work, and if the boss thinks it's bad for the workplace, that person I'm employed by can fire me. they doesn't have to support me- freedom of speech means the government can't bitch about it or get me in trouble for it. If a certain company doesn't want to put money towards your opinion if they disagree with you, they are free to do that. It's stupid, but they can do what the fuck they want.

They bitch about censorship but want to do that to liberals. Like they're going on about "freedom of speech applies to those who don't agree with you; stupid liberals" to support themselves but don't practice what they preach because people "think incorrectly" by their own standards.

Andy's sperg-fest really has proven that Antis and SJWs are one in the same. When one doesn't get their way, they make a scene and throw a tantrum similar to one a toddler would.

Youtube is sinking their own ship by doing this anyway. When they remove controversial content, they're not just removing the people responsible for it, they're also removing the audience for it. When you think about it, watering down their content will just have the result of watering down their traffic overall. It'll be virtually no different for them financially before they started the limited state program, only now they're barring off new business because the threat of being subject to a limited state is unattractive to creators. The few who try limited state Youtube will be those using it as a second hand source of viewership and they'll get frustrated by Youtube's built in antagonism. Youtube will be the afterthought that Dailymotion is. Imagine that.

They're not taking the videos down, they're demonetizing them.

You mean they've done all but that. Limited state doesn't just mean no ad revenue, it also means never appearing in recommended videos, no one can embed your video, no comments and no ratings. You can only be found with a direct link, the only thing a limited state video doesn't share in common with an unlisted video is that they haven't prevented newly uploaded videos from appearing on subscription feeds and on the uploader's account.

Honestly, this exact argument you're making is precisely why they chose to do it this way instead of just deleting videos. It's a perfect compromise to cripple wrongthink traffic and to prevent objection to it. Why are they preventing limited state videos from being embedded? So you can't gather a following to your Youtube channel off site. This isn't the end to it either, they'll eventually just start muting videos too, hiding them from subscription feeds and all manner of hiding, but only once the limited state appears mundane. After that becomes mundane, they'll just start deleting videos like a regular website would.

To be perfectly honest, sterilizing their videos will have no positive effect toward the profit of their business whatsoever. They're already way too late to be the internet television they envisioned being in 2007. I have Hulu, Netflix, Crunchyroll, Amazon and VRV on tap for anything I could want.

 

[LtCucumber]

Youtube is sinking their own ship by doing this anyway. When they remove controversial content, they're not just removing the people responsible for it, they're also removing the audience for it. When you think about it, watering down their content will just have the result of watering down their traffic overall. It'll be virtually no different for them financially before they started the limited state program, only now they're barring off new business because the threat of being subject to a limited state is unattractive to creators. The few who try limited state Youtube will be those using it as a second hand source of viewership and they'll get frustrated by Youtube's built in antagonism. Youtube will be the afterthought that Dailymotion is. Imagine that.



You mean they've done all but that. Limited state doesn't just mean no ad revenue, it also means never appearing in recommended videos, no one can embed your video, no comments and no ratings. You can only be found with a direct link, the only thing a limited state video doesn't share in common with an unlisted video is that they haven't prevented newly uploaded videos from appearing on subscription feeds and on the uploader's account.

Honestly, this exact argument you're making is precisely why they chose to do it this way instead of just deleting videos. It's a perfect compromise to cripple wrongthink traffic and to prevent objection to it. Why are they preventing limited state videos from being embedded? So you can't gather a following to your Youtube channel off site. This isn't the end to it either, they'll eventually just start muting videos too, hiding them from subscription feeds and all manner of hiding, but only once the limited state appears mundane. After that becomes mundane, they'll just start deleting videos like a regular website would.

To be perfectly honest, sterilizing their videos will have no positive effect toward the profit of their business whatsoever. They're already way too late to be the internet television they envisioned being in 2007. I have Hulu, Netflix, Crunchyroll, Amazon and VRV on tap for anything I could want.

I don't think their videos will ever be in a "hidden" state; I mean, if they did, then people would have something to actually complain about, and my guess is it would be antis and SJWs alike, as their content would violate whatever watered down rules on a more restricted youtube.
They won't sterilize shit, they know they'll get backlash for it. They care too much about making money to do something that bad for business. As long as their advertisers are backing enough content for them to get a good cut of the profit, that's all that matters. However if they water down their rules any more, then nobody will have advertiser friendly content, and they'll no longer earn money.

Sure, by them removing ad revenue from popular youtubers like Andy, JennaMarbles, h3h3, Blaire, etc, they will lose business, though people claiming they'll be jumping ship over that is autistic, considering youtube isn't the most stable of careers to choose. And I'm even using "career" to describe youtube (in most cases) very loosely.
But people calling it not being allowed freedom of speech? That's ridiculous. AFAIK people calling it censorship and getting on their soapbox about it are literally just losing dat ad moneys but aren't having videos removed (unless it does violate rules).
Freedom of speech means you can't get in legal trouble for expressing your opinion, and people can tell you to shut up. Sure, it's not ethical but that's how it works, you don't have to shut up when expressing your opinion but people don't have to listen to you either.
Freedom of speech is not "you have to listen to me because i have an opinion, or it's censorship."
Advertisers do not have to pay people they don't agree with/don't endorse the views of. Kinda like sponsors wouldn't sponsor people who dislike their products, and would talk shit about them as that's bad for business.

As much as I like these anti-sjw people on youtube, like Blaire and Andy, the whole situation with "adpocalypse" and talking about it like a gateway drug but instead it leads to more controversial rules (as opposed to leading to cocaine) is making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I don't think their videos will ever be in a "hidden" state; I mean, if they did, then people would have something to actually complain about, and my guess is it would be antis and SJWs alike, as their content would violate whatever watered down rules on a more restricted youtube.
They won't sterilize shit, they know they'll get backlash for it. They care too much about making money to do something that bad for business. As long as their advertisers are backing enough content for them to get a good cut of the profit, that's all that matters. However if they water down their rules any more, then nobody will have advertiser friendly content, and they'll no longer earn money.

Sure, by them removing ad revenue from popular youtubers like Andy, JennaMarbles, h3h3, Blaire, etc, they will lose business, though people claiming they'll be jumping ship over that is autistic, considering youtube isn't the most stable of careers to choose. And I'm even using "career" to describe youtube (in most cases) very loosely.
But people calling it not being allowed freedom of speech? That's ridiculous. AFAIK people calling it censorship and getting on their soapbox about it are literally just losing dat ad moneys but aren't having videos removed (unless it does violate rules).
Freedom of speech means you can't get in legal trouble for expressing your opinion, and people can tell you to shut up. Sure, it's not ethical but that's how it works, you don't have to shut up when expressing your opinion but people don't have to listen to you either.
Freedom of speech is not "you have to listen to me because i have an opinion, or it's censorship."
Advertisers do not have to pay people they don't agree with/don't endorse the views of. Kinda like sponsors wouldn't sponsor people who dislike their products, and would talk shit about them as that's bad for business.

As much as I like these anti-sjw people on youtube, like Blaire and Andy, the whole situation with "adpocalypse" and talking about it like a gateway drug but instead it leads to more controversial rules (as opposed to leading to cocaine) is making a mountain out of a molehill.

You seem to have the impression that censorship and freedom of speech are mutually exclusive. Censorship is the act of impeding, modifying and erasure of speech, it doesn't entail capital punishment. If not censorship, what then do you call it when they beep out or mute swear words on television?

Besides that, Youtube has a system in place for targeted ad campaigns, so when you advertise with them, it'll only appear on videos approved by you and you'll only pay for actual ad clicks and ad views of those selected videos. Why then would it be necessary for Youtube to judge for itself what is and isn't agreeable with advertisers when advertisers can pick and choose where they want their ads displayed during a campaign?

What doesn't make sense to me is why they would care, if an uploader is controversial, does it really matter if they're popular and deliver hits to your ads? When did companies, in the interest of making a profit, stop being a-political?

It's also been proven multiple times before that they'll just cull swaths of Youtube comments inexplicably and fraud up metrics to make them seem better or worse. Last I checked, adverts aren't displayed through Youtube comments so there's no point in removing them that way, nor would there be a financial incentive to fudge numbers such as view counts or approval ratings.

Removing ad revenue for a lot of these people could be considered a form of censorship since they're doing it with the intent to cut the funding stream necessary to continue delivering politically disagreeable content or to deincentivize the perpetuation of it.

If it's just business, then I don't see how it could be autistic to leave one platform for another when money is involved. Many of the people who create Youtube videos for a living do it because they can't find employment elsewhere. What's autistic about wanting to earn a living through videos? If Youtube isn't a real job, maybe it's not just their uploaders who need to get a real one, because then they're not running a real business.

I agree that a lot of people are being hyperbolic about the situation, but just because there's hyperbole doesn't make it altogether untrue.

 

[LtCucumber]

You seem to have the impression that censorship and freedom of speech are mutually exclusive. Censorship is the act of impeding, modifying and erasure of speech, it doesn't entail capital punishment. If not censorship, what then do you call it when they beep out or mute swear words on television?

Besides that, Youtube has a system in place for targeted ad campaigns, so when you advertise with them, it'll only appear on videos approved by you and you'll only pay for actual ad clicks and ad views of those selected videos. Why then would it be necessary for Youtube to judge for itself what is and isn't agreeable with advertisers when advertisers can pick and choose where they want their ads displayed during a campaign?

What doesn't make sense to me is why they would care, if an uploader is controversial, does it really matter if they're popular and deliver hits to your ads? When did companies, in the interest of making a profit, stop being a-political?

It's also been proven multiple times before that they'll just cull swaths of Youtube comments inexplicably and fraud up metrics to make them seem better or worse. Last I checked, adverts aren't displayed through Youtube comments so there's no point in removing them that way, nor would there be a financial incentive to fudge numbers such as view counts or approval ratings.

Removing ad revenue for a lot of these people could be considered a form of censorship since they're doing it with the intent to cut the funding stream necessary to continue delivering politically disagreeable content or to deincentivize the perpetuation of it.

If it's just business, then I don't see how it could be autistic to leave one platform for another when money is involved. Many of the people who create Youtube videos for a living do it because they can't find employment elsewhere. What's autistic about wanting to earn a living through videos? If Youtube isn't a real job, maybe it's not just their uploaders who need to get a real one, because then they're not running a real business.

I agree that a lot of people are being hyperbolic about the situation, but just because there's hyperbole doesn't make it altogether untrue.

The only hyperbole(s) being spread by antis is "it's just antis getting shat on" and "youtube is targeting us" when that is not true in the slightest. It's not just antis, I've talked about other youtubers who have been hit by the new rules.

There's also "we're being targeted for our opinions" that Andy is seemingly pushing ("i am the truth!!" ) which, when looking at the rules, is clearly false also. One of the things that isn't allowed in monetized content is, and i quote, "Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language" and just by THAT rule alone, boom, shit ton of Andy's videos gone.
It's beyond hyperbole; it's people drinking the kool-aid and thinking that everything that's in their way is "infringing on muh free speech", it's either flat out lying or not doing enough research and looking like a tard.

 

[cactus]

The only hyperbole(s) being spread by antis is "it's just antis getting shat on" and "youtube is targeting us" when that is not true in the slightest. It's not just antis, I've talked about other youtubers who have been hit by the new rules.

There's also "we're being targeted for our opinions" that Andy is seemingly pushing ("i am the truth!!" ) which, when looking at the rules, is clearly false also. One of the things that isn't allowed in monetized content is, and i quote, "Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language" and just by THAT rule alone, boom, shit ton of Andy's videos gone.
It's beyond hyperbole; it's people drinking the kool-aid and thinking that everything that's in their way is "infringing on muh free speech", it's either flat out lying or not doing enough research and looking like a tard.

Funny things about all of this is that worse stuff on TV still manages to have commercials aired during breaks yet YouTube can't let that happen on their site for some strange reason. Also something about the true crime shit on YouTube also being targeted yet murder porn channel Investigative Discovery has plenty of commercials. Basically YouTube is targeting anything not considered family friendly while claiming it's not advertiser friendly, so censorship in a way.

 

[Rainbow_Frag]

They all just steal other people's videos and then just insult them so that they can feed on the anger of the people on Youtube. Nothing more. Just a bunch of waste of space losers that should have never existed.

 

[LtCucumber]

Funny things about all of this is that worse stuff on TV still manages to have commercials aired during breaks yet YouTube can't let that happen on their site for some strange reason. Also something about the true crime shit on YouTube also being targeted yet murder porn channel Investigative Discovery has plenty of commercials. Basically YouTube is targeting anything not considered family friendly while claiming it's not advertiser friendly, so censorship in a way.

If it's on TV, maybe ads towards specific audiences? The TV channel SYFY has things like horror movies on there, as well as scary programs in general, like Blood Drive, though those are on in the evening, when the kids usually go to bed. The only reason i brought this up is because when watching Drag Me To Hell last night, the first commercial was about the show Blood Drive; commercials like that are too creepy to be on something like nickelodeon, which is aimed at kids. Hell, they're even too creepy to be on during the day in case anyone watching the SyFy channel wants to binge watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Youtube has a large audience of younger kids (so 6-ish to 13 or so); people who are teachers use it as a teaching aid all the way through school and getting a link to a video with a lot of cursing next to a kids video may not be smart, especially if auto-play is on. So the limited links I do kinda get. Like back when I first started watching youtube I found a lot of fucked up stuff that I shouldn't have.

When it comes to TV, usually parents have that control over what their kids watch as their parents are usually in the room, and unless they know how to work a computer (like my parents don't, lmao), they can't really control what their kids watch on the internet (warflashbacks to 1man1jar when i was 12) maybe not even on youtube, and maybe that's why. Considering how kids are using ipads by the age of 5 or so, you know that kids have more freedom on the net than ever before. Today's kids are growing up with technology. And honestly for some the internet and netflix have taken over and people are using television for entertainment less and less, and going on the internet for it.

When you think about that, and take it into consideration, that may explain it. The internet is less censored than the TV. Most TV programs/films that aren't appropriate for kids have their own channel or they're on at a later time of the day, or they're advertised as being on at a specific time so parents know what to avoid- online everything is on demand, at your fingertips.

 

[cactus]

If it's on TV, maybe ads towards specific audiences? The TV channel SYFY has things like horror movies on there, as well as scary programs in general, like Blood Drive, though those are on in the evening, when the kids usually go to bed. The only reason i brought this up is because when watching Drag Me To Hell last night, the first commercial was about the show Blood Drive; commercials like that are too creepy to be on something like nickelodeon, which is aimed at kids. Hell, they're even too creepy to be on during the day in case anyone watching the SyFy channel wants to binge watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Youtube has a large audience of younger kids (so 6-ish to 13 or so); people who are teachers use it as a teaching aid all the way through school and getting a link to a video with a lot of cursing next to a kids video may not be smart, especially if auto-play is on. So the limited links I do kinda get. Like back when I first started watching youtube I found a lot of fucked up stuff that I shouldn't have.

When it comes to TV, usually parents have that control over what their kids watch as their parents are usually in the room, and unless they know how to work a computer (like my parents don't, lmao), they can't really control what their kids watch on the internet (warflashbacks to 1man1jar when i was 12) maybe not even on youtube, and maybe that's why. Considering how kids are using ipads by the age of 5 or so, you know that kids have more freedom on the net than ever before. Today's kids are growing up with technology. And honestly for some the internet and netflix have taken over and people are using television for entertainment less and less, and going on the internet for it.

When you think about that, and take it into consideration, that may explain it. The internet is less censored than the TV. Most TV programs/films that aren't appropriate for kids have their own channel or they're on at a later time of the day, or they're advertised as being on at a specific time so parents know what to avoid- online everything is on demand, at your fingertips.

I would think YouTube would have targeted ads based on what is being viewed. But generally ads are neutral in tone so they can sell a product, so for the most part, it wouldn't matter what ads show up for educational and child-aimed materials. Plus those Spiderman/Elsa videos are worse than what any advertisement would show.

 

[LtCucumber]

I would think YouTube would have targeted ads based on what is being viewed. But generally ads are neutral in tone so they can sell a product, so for the most part, it wouldn't matter what ads show up for educational and child-aimed materials. Plus those Spiderman/Elsa videos are worse than what any advertisement would show.

I don't know if it's based on what you're watching. Someone sent me a Simply Nailogical video today and I got an advert for coke with no sugar or some shit
Thinking of the elsa/spiderman videos, the problem with the rules is it won't demonetize "weird" content. I mean, sure it's not "kid friendly" by the standards of many people, but by youtube's standards, because it doesn't include anything against advertiser rules, it's a-okay and kid friendly.
Though just because it toes the line, doesn't make it okay, youtube will filter through videos but only look at what blatantly breaks rules, but not at the content that may just be generally questionable by general standards. Kinda like Onision, when he defends himself. "It's not against the law, it's okay. it's not questionable because it's not illegal". Same as with youtube, it seems to be a case of "it's questionable but doesn't fall under what's specified" though to be honest imagine the backlash youtube would get for demonetizing content that wasn't breaking specific rules; either way youtube will be under fire. So everyone's in a bit of a difficult spot.

it's almost like they can't do anything right really. Though when you think about it, they wouldn't have rules if advertisers didn't complain about their content being put on content containing stuff they don't want their products advertised on

Likely scenario being that the rules were put in place because the advertisers threatened to stop doing business with youtube if their adverts are being slapped on content from everyone getting paid by youtube, which will include content that they don't want to be associated with.

Put it this way: Advertiser pays to have their ads hosted on the site. Content creator receives a cut of the ad revenue. Advertiser is paying the content creators essentially and they are what keeps youtube afloat. If the advertisers stop wanting to be associated with youtube, youtube will lose profits, and so will the content creators. Youtubers will also lose money if youtube loses advertisers anyway, it's a lose-lose scenario for youtubers, who lose money, and also for youtube, who would probably get backlash either way.
Above is at least what the whole situation seems like. I may be wrong though.

 

[BurnerRobot]

The "Muh Skeptic" crowd are also much more transparent than the weird cartoon shit. The Spider-Man/Elsa stuff looks innocuous on the surface, and has to actually be watched for someone to realise the issues apparent. Most of the "Muh Skeptics" wear their heart on their sleeve when it comes to their views, and thus it's much easier for people who don't want to support anti-feminists to see that these are people that they don't want to be associated with.

 

[cactus]

I don't know if it's based on what you're watching. Someone sent me a Simply Nailogical video today and I got an advert for coke with no sugar or some shit
Thinking of the elsa/spiderman videos, the problem with the rules is it won't demonetize "weird" content. I mean, sure it's not "kid friendly" by the standards of many people, but by youtube's standards, because it doesn't include anything against advertiser rules, it's a-okay and kid friendly.
Though just because it toes the line, doesn't make it okay, youtube will filter through videos but only look at what blatantly breaks rules, but not at the content that may just be generally questionable by general standards. Kinda like Onision, when he defends himself. "It's not against the law, it's okay. it's not questionable because it's not illegal". Same as with youtube, it seems to be a case of "it's questionable but doesn't fall under what's specified" though to be honest imagine the backlash youtube would get for demonetizing content that wasn't breaking specific rules; either way youtube will be under fire. So everyone's in a bit of a difficult spot.

it's almost like they can't do anything right really. Though when you think about it, they wouldn't have rules if advertisers didn't complain about their content being put on content containing stuff they don't want their products advertised on

Likely scenario being that the rules were put in place because the advertisers threatened to stop doing business with youtube if their adverts are being slapped on content from everyone getting paid by youtube, which will include content that they don't want to be associated with.

Put it this way: Advertiser pays to have their ads hosted on the site. Content creator receives a cut of the ad revenue. Advertiser is paying the content creators essentially and they are what keeps youtube afloat. If the advertisers stop wanting to be associated with youtube, youtube will lose profits, and so will the content creators. Youtubers will also lose money if youtube loses advertisers anyway, it's a lose-lose scenario for youtubers, who lose money, and also for youtube, who would probably get backlash either way.
Above is at least what the whole situation seems like. I may be wrong though.

I forgot who, but someone I watch did say YouTube did something like this last time and it kinda settled down after a while, so we'll see in the future.

As an advertiser, I understand not wanting your ads on certain videos, but things do slip through the cracks and that's no reason to freak the fuck the out like what happened. Politely inform them you don't want your ads on certain videos and let the site take care of it. Even the AI that was developed isn't perfect and I'm not exactly a fan of it because it's a computer and works like one, but YouTube is also lazy and won't hire more people to make sure what the new system isn't flagging things that are fine when given a context.

The "Muh Skeptic" crowd are also much more transparent than the weird cartoon shit. The Spider-Man/Elsa stuff looks innocuous on the surface, and has to actually be watched for someone to realise the issues apparent. Most of the "Muh Skeptics" wear their heart on their sleeve when it comes to their views, and thus it's much easier for people who don't want to support anti-feminists to see that these are people that they don't want to be associated with.

The Google AI is supposedly able to go through a video find anything offensive, apparently it fails at its job when it comes to these videos.

 

[LtCucumber]

I forgot who, but someone I watch did say YouTube did something like this last time and it kinda settled down after a while, so we'll see in the future.

As an advertiser, I understand not wanting your ads on certain videos, but things do slip through the cracks and that's no reason to freak the fuck the out like what happened. Politely inform them you don't want your ads on certain videos and let the site take care of it. Even the AI that was developed isn't perfect and I'm not exactly a fan of it because it's a computer and works like one, but YouTube is also lazy and won't hire more people to make sure what the new system isn't flagging things that are fine when given a context.


The Google AI is supposedly able to go through a video find anything offensive, apparently it fails at its job when it comes to these videos.

Well yeah, the AI isn't perfect; I think in Theryn's video she mentioned that youtube is trying to work on that, as some people have had all of their content demonetized or multiple videos demonetized just because one of them broke the rules, and that they're working on people being able to appeal, as well known youtubers like Jenna Marbles and h3h3 have spoken out about not being able to appeal in that particular situation.