The WSJ may have used doctored images in their anti-YouTube story [video]

via https://twitter.com/TrustedFlagger/status/848664259307466753

".@h3h3productions messed up. The video was monetised by OmniaMediaMusic. Evidence in source code of original video." "The video was claimed due to the copyrighted content, hence the sudden drop off in ad revenue. Nothing to do with it being demonetised by YT"

This video is at the top of reddit, but it doesn't show any real evidence of doctored videos.

Although google prevented affiliate monetisation on the video as seen on the affiliate earning graph, they probably have some intermediate step whereby they still show ads but the affiliate doesn't get paid for them.

Secondly, where the same video was shown with multiple different ads and the same view count - youtube video view counts dont increase in real time. You can push refresh on a video a few times and you will likely get 3 different ads with the same viewcount recorded.

I wish they were doctored images, but I don't think this is evidence of that.

Also, when did social justice trolling become a business model for the WSJ? First pewdiepie, now this?

The view count on videos is not updated in real time. Once a video reaches about 300 views, YouTube only updates the counter a few times a day.