Hacker News Reader

Comment by AmIFirstToThink | Hacker News Reader

Why, the store that sells Nazi paraphernalia on Amazon, of course. People who sell NAZI books.

Jokes aside, why does it matter that Advertisers are not choosing certain 'unpalatable' bubbles to not be associated with those channels, that's perfectly fine.

You seem to be concerned about extremist videos making money, I don't care about that at all. I just want all videos to be available unless legal system demands its removal after due process. Present sanitized content by default, present all content if explicitly requested, where an action from user says they want to see offending content.

Advertisers should be allowed to chose the channels that they advertise on. Some may choose to advertise on default channel before the content is flagged. Let the buyer make the decision. Why is YouTube giving in to certain vocal Ad buyers to decide for entire Ad market?

View on HN

1. Every video YouTube hosts on its platform costs YouTube money.

2. YouTube recoups the cost and makes a tidy profit from ad revenue.

3. Videos you can't put ads in front of can't be monetized.

4. Videos that can't be monetized still cost YouTube to process, host and serve.

5. As such, every non-monetizable video hurts YouTube's bottom line.

6. Why would YouTube want that?

YouTube decided that it will demonetize videos. They preferred to do that for some complains by some Advertisers, rather than giving Advertisers tools to avoid/select certain channels or certain topics. Very similar concept to AdWords, BanWords! Put the Advertiser in control of where the Ad gets shown or specifically, where it doesn't get shown. Demonetization was an ideological decision by Google, it was a political decision.

>As such, every non-monetizable video hurts YouTube's bottom line.

Even every non-monetized video is still eyes on the screen for Google. NetFlix claims to compete with books & libraries for time of the day from its viewers. Yeah, Google may not show Ad on that video but the next one in autoplay/recommended list is still going to ring the cash register. It is actually better for Google because they may very well show Ads but not pay the De-Monetized content creators, videos that they created actually act as leads to youtube. These political videos is where a reader is sent to youtube from non-youtube sites, which is much more valuable to google and they are getting away by not paying anything for that. Leading video is much more valuable to google than a video in auto-play list. Not pay for leads but get paid for Ads on subsequent videos, very nice business model win-win Google developed for itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com