Hacker News Reader

Comment by gkoberger | Hacker News Reader

They're stopping ads, not content.

Content and ads are very different things. Stopping lucrative crypto ads certainly will financially hurt Google, but is definitely a win for consumers. Most crypto advertising is 100% scams. There's a huge difference between letting someone speak their mind on your platform (content) versus accepting money to broadcast their message on your platform (ads).

As for content, that's completely different (and a slippery slope). I won't pick a side on free speech vs protecting people, but I will say I'm very glad I don't have to choose where to draw the line.

View on HN

> They're stopping ads, not content.

They’ve been removing videos from YouTube also. Which they are free to do, it being their platform, but my point is that they are removing content also.

This article is about ads.

But, to your point: are they? Outside of copyright infringement and downright illegal content, are they really removing any videos? I googled it, and all I found were terrorists and copyright infringement being removed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/world/middleeast/syria-yo...

"I googled it"

I see what you did there :D

Not the full story. They've been actually demonetizing, or in some cases removing, videos for political speech they don't agree with.

Even former Rep Ron Paul's Youtube channel was demonetized--which is frankly just insanely ridiculous.

Meanwhile media reports extremist content such as Nazi propaganda is available?!

Another example is anti-Trump, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro.

I'm not exactly sure who can be said is being "protected" by retaliating against Paul and Shapiro?

It's their platform, but without either competition or regulation they're quickly becoming an unreasonable Thought Police.

1-https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xw5bxk/youtube-ne...

This article was about ads, not content. That's the distinction I was making.

Google is very loathe to remove videos. I haven't seen that often, outside of copyright infringement or something truly illegal.

Demonetization is different. It's basically saying "we'll let you talk... But we don't want to reward you and charge our advertisers for it". It's a hugely slippery slope, of course, but... It's one thing to demand free speech (which Google isn't legally required to allow), yet a completely different thing to demand Google pay people they disagree with.

> "demand free speech"

The top parent comment was not making a legal "demand" but was expressing concern and hope for a fair competitor to arise which treated different viewpoints in a neutral manner.

> "ads not content"

Nevertheless many content producers rely on ads to sustain themselves, and so by unfairly demonitizing viewpoints google/facebook disagrees with, the argument can be made they are doing evil. And especially considering their power as gatekeepers of the modern avenue of public discourse, we should be very concerned about them picking sides, especially for topics with a political component.

You stated "they're stopping ads, not content." That is not completely true. That's what I responded to.

> Even former Rep Ron Paul's Youtube channel was demonetized--which is frankly just insanely ridiculous.

perhaps all channels with political goals (candidates, parties) should be demonetized.

They're waging war, not just on political disagreements, but on alternative media.

Most of the media is owned by a small number of corporations and they want you to get your ideas and info from them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com