Ack! I am not arguing, nor would I, that YT or anyone else should be prevented from managing their medium however they choose. YT shouldn't be "required" to pay for anything for which they do not with to pay. Requirements or legal obligations have nothing to do with my point.
I'm not talking about legal obligations either, I'm talking about customer expectations. We've already gone over the legal aspect of this and no one is talking about what YT is required to do by law, but instead, what we expect of YouTube.
My question to you is as to whether or not it is reasonable to suggest that YouTube and it's ad partners pay for any and all content regardless of the nature of that content?
Sigh....no, I am not. YT can have whatever standards it wants, as can advertisers, nor have I said or implied anything to the contrary. Look, just because I don't like something, think it is unfair, don't trust it, or believe it may be bad for the country doesn't mean I think it should not be permitted.
I'm not talking about the law.
We've already established that neither of us are talking about the law and what is or isn't legally permitted. No one in this thread disputes the point that YouTube has the right to do this.
What is being argued here is what is reasonable to expect from YouTube.
My argument is that it makes little rational sense to assume YouTube should pay for content that it does not approve of.
An ever increasing number of people get their political news from social media, and whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it. Therefore, if YT or their advertisers have a bias, that bias will be reflected, to some extent, on the prevalence of those kind of videos.
You keep saying this, and I keep asking:
Where is the evidence within the space of YouTube?
If SJW videos are deemed worthy of monetization, but others aren't, that would create a bias in terms of available content. That doesn't mean I think that should be illegal or not permitted, but it is a bias nevertheless
Third time... No one is arguing the legality of this one way or the other.... we already covered this.
The point here is that no bias exists, and your argument is logically fallacious. It's nothing more than a slippery slope argument based on some possibility that bias may manifest itself at some point in time...
Again, this doesn't actually address the question; should YouTube be expected to pay for any and all content, regardless of what that content is?
Actually, we do not know whether it is happening or now, but more importantly, the potential for that bias to manifest in the future is clear.
Actually we do know that this isn't happening.
There were/are numerous right-wing, populist, nationalist and alt-right YouTubers that have not been censored and continue to get most of their content monetized.
While this may change in the future, and likely will; that doesn't mean that these standards will demonstrate significant
bias that is
caused by the policy standards.
And yet you continue to make this claim without any substantive rationale to believe that YouTube will inevitably become significantly biased such that the platform's practices could be considered unreasonable or damaging in anyway.
In fact, I don't really get the basis of your argument since it seems to be entirely based in a future hypothetical context of what YouTube
might do,
someday. Which is strange, because, YouTube has always had some degree of standards in place, they just weren't necessarily forthright in allowing appeals to their decisions or informing content providers of their videos removal from the monetization program.
We do know that Google has had political biases, and we know that many advertisers do as well.
Okaaaay.....
Waiting until we can confirm that it is actually happening in this particular instance overlooks that such biases may be difficult to detect/prove, and therefore may be in existence for quite awhile before action is taken.
You understand these biases are immediately evident and easily proven right??
The moment someone puts up a video that meets ToS and is denied monetization would be evidence of this bias. So far though, I haven't heard of that happening
at all; especially not with a
bias that is represented on the conservative side of the political spectrum.
So, all I am saying is that conservatives should be vigilant about this, and point out the existence of generic media (including at Google) bias so that those who rely on social media for their news are aware that the bias exists.
I have no problem if you state that Google and Twitter demonstrate bias; I completely agree.
There is no evidence that
YouTube exhibits bias, especially with respect to the
monetization program.
I understand Google and YouTube are the same company, but I think you are conflating search aggregation with the monetization and partner programs. These two things have literally nothing to do with one another; and if YouTube wanted to actually censor videos, they would just change their aggregation methodology.
Raise the issue now as a way to dissuade YT from going down that road at all. I suspect it will happen anyway,
Right, but, again, YouTube hasn't done what you're describing and there's little to no indication that this policy change has anything to do with what you're describing.
Your argument seems to be so generalized, and really more about Google, than it has anything to do with YouTube or the topic of the OP.
