What pissed you off today? Mark II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whenever there is any kind of content dispute on a YT channel, the creators have the option to contest it. In all my time as a content creator, I've never once been flagged for subject matter or anything of the sort, and I feature all kinds of fun stuff.

YouTube's bots are a joke and always have been, since their implementation, they've made it an uphill struggle to publish content. But, with the exception of hardcore pornogrophy, you can pretty much get away with anything. You might get blocked in some countries due to excessive violence or music choices, but that's a drop in the bucket. Monetization pays shit anyway, and most creators have external websites, or join larger channels that pay them per vid/views to make it viable as a job. Ads pay one ten billionth of a penny, so it doesn't even really matter unless you are pulling in millions of views.

As for companies pullin their ads and the addition of new programs searching for flagged words now, whatever. They will just wait for the noise to die down and quietly go back to not giving a shit once the flavor of the month changes to the next big outrage. It's a universal truth, corporations don't give a flying fuck about the consumer, they just have to act like they do sometimes. I've seen it all before, whether it was copyrighted visual content, music, violence, religious views/content, blah blah blah.

Not worried at all Con :D
 
Morons using the 'right turn only' lane to continue driving straight ahead therefore bypassing cars sitting at a stoplight.

I have started seeing around 2 per per week since the first of the year.

But these are the same people that feel speed limits are merely suggestions.
 
I've had a blog on LiveJournal for ~ 15 years; my partner got me a lifetime membership as a gift. They got bought out by a Russian company a while back, and the ToS have just been changed: per Russian law, pretty much anything LGBT-related (like, say, acknowledging the existence of LGBT folk) now has to be flagged as "mature content".

I don't post there much these days, and my journal is all backed up on another site, but I have a lot of good memories from LJ and it pisses me off to have it tainted by those assholes. It's like finding your old hangout has become a neo-Nazi clubhouse :-/
 
The mass-demonetization occurred because many large advertising companies suddenly detached from the youtube advertisement program due to two news outlets (Washington post and The Independent I think) publishing a story making an extremely misleading implication that ads on youtube (e.g. Coca Cola ads) were being shown on pro-Nazi / ISIS / [insert bogyman here] content and so ipso facto Coca Cola is affiliated with Nazis.

Your argument is:
Moral decisions are rendered unnecessary by software algorithms.

Everybody, even the advertisers, have known from the moment that monetization was introduced that their ads might appear on content they ideologically disagree with. But have been A-Ok with it until now because it is understood that anybody who sees those ads also knows that Coca Cola is in fact not affiliated with Nazis.

And this is very likely wrong. Companies reaching a certain size have been and will always be paranoid about where their trademark appears. Moral clauses in advertising contracts with humans are likely as old as advertising themselves. Nobody ever said:"Pepsi, why did you cancel the deal with Mike Tyson? You fucking knew before that he likes to hit people!"

A company would have to be fairly schizophrenic to put in heavy moral clauses into contracts and then waste their brand with:"I really don't care where my trademark appears online."

Companies are ignorant about a lot of stuff that is fairly logical for a geek, yes, I will agree with this. But being ignorant about something is not the same as endorsing something.

The harsh reaction towards Google is the result of the simple fact that this is the way it always has been - and they simply make no exception just because we are talking about "Google", "Silicon Valley", "Internet", or whatever. They have the money, they make the rules - they don't have to care how technically feasible their demand is.

Short side story:
When the Internet started to become popular, Disney actually wanted to create a MMO, this was in the early '90s. Disney's policy was simple:"No kid will be harassed."
The tech guys said:"Uhm, this is not possible. If we ban "fuck" as word, people will write "F-U-C-K" or whatever."
So, this lead to the decision that the MMO will have no communication options.
They wanted to give the kids some creativity, so they could build stuff with boxes. One guy pointed out that kids could then just create the word "FUCK" with boxes. It was more a sarcastic joke to get the chat communication back in - instead it lead to the MMO project being cancelled.

This is how large companies work.

(Later they made Toontown, with pre-constructed approved sentences (white-listed words were still too dangerous)).


Googles reaction is again a simple result - getting the companies back as fast as possible. There is no point in protecting small businesses that live on Google ads by losing the companies that fucking pay the ads in the first place.


So....now, regarding the motives of the newspapers. I have no idea or opinion. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are not. But does it matter? If someone rats me out, there is no:"He only ratted me out for his own benefit - so you should ignore what you know."-defense.
 
And this is very likely wrong. Companies reaching a certain size have been and will always be paranoid about where their trademark appears.
[..]
A company would have to be fairly schizophrenic to put in heavy moral clauses into contracts and then waste their brand with:"I really don't care where my trademark appears online."
Sure they will, but in this case it's not wrong. The most specificity an ad company has with regard to where their ads are placed on youtube is to prioritize videos with certain keywords in titles and video tags. E.g. a video promoting communism & atheism can (and does. Or, y'know, did...) frequently have ads for Prager University or Kirk Cameron's new book because they had the tags "Politics" and "religion".
Or an ad for new weed killers from Monsanto appearing on a video by a urine-drinking naturist preaching the dangers of GMO's. Ads have always appeared on things that the company obviously ideologically disagrees with.

[...]
They have the money, they make the rules - they don't have to care how technically feasible their demand is.
[...]
Googles reaction is again a simple result - getting the companies back as fast as possible. There is no point in protecting small businesses that live on Google ads by losing the companies that fucking pay the ads in the first place.
Yeah, no argument there. Although I can think of one financial incentive which is that ad companies just lost a whole lot of their target audience through youtube which might put pressure on Google to slacken the policy a bit. E.g. people who spend their time on the internet watching Miley Cyrus songs and cat videos most likely aren't the type who are going to be interested in an ad for a political candidate or a Prager U' ad.
 
:( Cats should stop pretending like everything is fine...
Injured cat?
I hate how cats do that. My first cat had to be put down because she had a malignant mouth tumor which had pretty much infested her entire skull, warping bones and everything. We only noticed anything was wrong because she started drooling a lot. :(
 
Oh no, what's wrong?

Cats are really good at pretending everything is fine. Too good for their own good.

It's most likely that she is asthmatic. :( But we hopefully can get it under control. I'm glad that we can treat this.

Sorry about your cat, Con. :rose:
 
Hm. I think I'm pissed off because I can't make up my mind how I feel about the recent terror attack in Sweden, after the Swedish government boldly declared that they have no problems.
 

Having worked at WalMart I'm surprised they even did the drive when they intentionally keep people part time to deny them benefits, close entire stores if they try to unionize and pay barely above minimum wage. Still better then working for Target (done both, in my experience Walmart was a better employer).

Today- breaking and shaking after a really bad night. After a really bad month. Sighs
 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/well/family/new-mexico-outlaws-school-lunch-shaming.html

"In Alabama, a child short on funds was stamped on the arm with “I Need Lunch Money.” In some schools, children are forced to clean cafeteria tables in front of their peers to pay the debt. Other schools require cafeteria workers to take a child’s hot food and throw it in the trash if he doesn’t have the money to pay for it."

How do people do this shit and live with themselves?
 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/well/family/new-mexico-outlaws-school-lunch-shaming.html

"In Alabama, a child short on funds was stamped on the arm with “I Need Lunch Money.” In some schools, children are forced to clean cafeteria tables in front of their peers to pay the debt. Other schools require cafeteria workers to take a child’s hot food and throw it in the trash if he doesn’t have the money to pay for it."

How do people do this shit and live with themselves?

This is not new. When I was a child if I reached into my pocket and discovered my lunch money wasn't there, they would take away the tray and hand me a PBJ sandwich. Everyone knew what the PBJ sandwich meant. The working it off or getting a stamp or wrist band is something I've never heard of, but it's fucked up. I remember an article about a woman being fired for refusing to take lunches away. I think I've said it here before, but I really appreciated school lunches because lunch didn't exist in the summer time for me. I really think we could spring for covering more meals in schools before we start upping our military funding. (Though with fuckface in office I'm thinking our military is going to be getting used more :rolleyes:)

And for those that think "but people scam the system! Somebody might be getting food in school that they don't deserve!"

I say FUCK YOU. Even if there's somebody trying to scam the system, the end result is A CHILD GETS FED. I don't know about you, but I don't mind if children get food. I actually REALLY like when children get to eat.
 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/well/family/new-mexico-outlaws-school-lunch-shaming.html

"In Alabama, a child short on funds was stamped on the arm with “I Need Lunch Money.” In some schools, children are forced to clean cafeteria tables in front of their peers to pay the debt. Other schools require cafeteria workers to take a child’s hot food and throw it in the trash if he doesn’t have the money to pay for it."

How do people do this shit and live with themselves?
And for those that think "but people scam the system! Somebody might be getting food in school that they don't deserve!"

I say FUCK YOU. Even if there's somebody trying to scam the system, the end result is A CHILD GETS FED. I don't know about you, but I don't mind if children get food. I actually REALLY like when children get to eat.
But you guys, don't you know that Assad (supposedly) gassed beautiful little babies? 90 million dollars worth of Tomahawks cleared that right up probably. Your kids can't eat missiles so there's no obvious solution to the problem.
 
This is not new. When I was a child if I reached into my pocket and discovered my lunch money wasn't there, they would take away the tray and hand me a PBJ sandwich. Everyone knew what the PBJ sandwich meant. The working it off or getting a stamp or wrist band is something I've never heard of, but it's fucked up. I remember an article about a woman being fired for refusing to take lunches away. I think I've said it here before, but I really appreciated school lunches because lunch didn't exist in the summer time for me. I really think we could spring for covering more meals in schools before we start upping our military funding. (Though with fuckface in office I'm thinking our military is going to be getting used more :rolleyes:)

And for those that think "but people scam the system! Somebody might be getting food in school that they don't deserve!"

I say FUCK YOU. Even if there's somebody trying to scam the system, the end result is A CHILD GETS FED. I don't know about you, but I don't mind if children get food. I actually REALLY like when children get to eat.

I'm a vet and second that. We never needed subsidized school lunches as kids, but I had friends who did. Sometimes it was the only real meal they got that day. As a parent myself now, I can't imagine taking food away from a hungry child to trash it. I can imagine the phone call, office visit and round table of wtf is wrong with you people though were this ever to happen to my kids. And that child labor for food- great law suit material because child labor is illegal and oh the field day of district wide misery.

My server rig is being a pita tonight. Which is minor all things considered but still a pain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top