HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ sam0x17

I've never understood how we got to this place where _some_ content on youtube is advertiser friendly and _some_ is not, and that is viewed as actionable information. I guess my whole mental model is you run ads on the whole network, and advertisers have nothing to do with the content being shown, and only an idiot would look at an ad and think, oh this brand is knowingly sponsoring this content. Advertisers used to be content with that, and wouldn't dream of being choosey about what content their ads run alongside of. However we got to this place, it's done a lot of damage -- would much rather live in the world where there is no concept of demonetizing a particular video or channel, and ads just run on the entire network. Caving to advertiser demands is the #1 best way to make a platform worse for the actual users and content creaters and slowly drain your value. Note that for example google AdSense could run alongside _any_ content that appears on youtube probably without issue. They've just created this different, pickier world when it comes to video ads.

What's worse is youtube entirely controls the market, and they opened the floodgates of caving to advertiser demands. Now advertisers expect it wherever they go. They should be 4th class citizens if anything, not a meaningful constituency. As long as youtube keeps driving users to the platform, that should be the only concern.

⬐ jollybean

We subconciously make associations, and this works on everyone.

In magazines, advertisers might want to know what article is facing their ad. Or which show their commercial would be on.

And advertisers are very cautious of being associated with things they do not like.

And there has always been content that most advertisers have not wanted to go near. Porn, being the easiest example.

This is not pop psychology it's real stuff.

Advertisers were making such 'demands' since the dawn of advertising nothing is new here.

⬐ kevincox

The thing I never understood is why is "demonetization" black and white. Why not by default have a filter on ads that prevent them being shown on any "unsavory" content but allow the advertisers to opt-in to this. I'm sure that many brands would be fine with their ads being shown next to sexual content they can just uncheck the box "Don't show my ads next to sexual content". Other brands may be fine with violence and others with both.

Obviously getting your video flagged as sexual, violent or whatever other default-disabled category would still greatly impact your profits as you will have less ads bidding on your video but it is far better than the 0 revenue of today.

⬐ UncleMeat

This already exists.

⬐ oehpr

I think, in disagreement with other responses, almost everyone understands a random advert is not sponsoring the content it is near.

But if you hate 1. the advert, or 2. the content, then you can make a public argument that they are and there's not a good way to say you arn't. I mean there's kind of a justification for it. If you wern't bidding on that adspot, someone else would have gotten it for a bit lower.

The fact that you CAN say it and kinda defend it allows you to activate demographics of people that already hate your target. No one is interested in sober analysis when they have axes to grind.

⬐ moralestapia

> only an idiot would look at an ad and think, oh this brand is knowingly sponsoring this content.

Yes, but also, we live in a very incendiary society where some people are willing to take on whatever story and blow it out of proportion. Your face or trademark in a banner on the wrong website is enough for someone to link you to whatever cause that site is promoting and that could be the end of your business/career, literally.

⬐ Tarq0n

The whole demonetization thing seems like a response to manufactured outrage that got a few large brands to feel threatened.

As a rule, people spend time watching content they like, and that's where advertisers should want to be, it doesn't matter if it lines up with their image or not, for the most part the only people that see your ad next to a video of something potentially disagreeable are people positively predisposed to that idea anyway.

⬐ kube-system

> only an idiot would look at an ad and think, oh this brand is knowingly sponsoring this content.

I don’t disagree but I also think

* many companies want to sell to idiots

* vocal fringe ideologists can blow these financial relationships up into a PR incident

* some responsible companies actually do care about where their money goes

* YouTube also doesn’t want negative PR “YouTube financially supports [bad thing]” but at the same time understands that demonetized content is important attracting factor to the platform overall

I don’t think YouTube is to blame here. The issue is that ad supported platforms inherently have advertisers as customers, and viewers are only a means to an end. The entire business model is flawed in the lens of the viewer or content producer, and there’s no way to fix it.

⬐ jrm4

I mean -- you do get that the "idiots" are the target market, right? That's who you want to target as an advertiser, the people who aren't thinking critically like this.

These sort of associations are literally one of the main ways Google sells ads.

⬐ sam0x17

We should give the idiots more credit though. Specifically everyone pretty much ignores ads anyway. The main way Google sells ads is convincing advertisers that ad clicks are anything other than miss-clicks and that organic traffic that you would get anyway is actually the result of your marketing campaign.

⬐ sam0x17

> I don’t think YouTube is to blame here.

They are. They opened the floodgates of coddling advertisers. Before they did, no one listened to them at all.

⬐ Rebelgecko

Is that true? Even back in the TV days I remember people going after advertisers who advertised on certain channels or programs (to protest if the advertisers were supporting "bad" content)

⬐ sam0x17

I mean specifically in the world of online advertising. For a long time it was essentially CPM with no targeting, and that was considered fine.

⬐ edmundsauto

This is incorrect, advertisers and especially the American Christian lobby is responsible for most of the censorship leverage.

Back in the day, it was conservatives doing all the censorship because Johnny couldn’t hear a profanity on tv without becoming an idiot. (At home was always fine, that is of course freedom of speech).

⬐ kube-system

Companies have always had a say about where their ads are placed. This is a core responsibility of any company’s marketing department.

Advertisers don’t just get customers out of thin air, they have to convince their customers to become customers.

⬐ keithnz

This channel has such a good window on what is going wrong in America at the bottom. The stories of how people end up being exploited and damaged, the failure of foster care, and the awful reality of kids being born into the exact same circumstances which will repeat themselves.

⬐ grecy

I wonder if that's part of the reason it was demonetized. Dirty laundry is not something the powers that be usually like aired.

⬐ nonethewiser

But why does he film them half naked?

⬐ jayski

I love this YouTube channel, I find the stories very interesting. I haven't watched them all, but the ones I've watched 80% were fully clothed.

I highly recommend this YT channel.

⬐ vogt

I always got a slight feeling that he was a bit of a creep in disguise, but looking back after having watched, I don’t know, maybe half of the videos on the channel currently, I think that he intentionally brings interviewees in off the street exactly as they are. I believe the studio is near skid row in Los Angeles and that many of them are invited to film in whatever they were wearing that day. Whether or not that is appropriate or germane to the end goal of the channel is debatable, but I do feel like he is simply trying to show these people “as is”, with no production varnish

⬐ StanislavPetrov

I think because he wants to film them exactly as they are on a day-to-day basis. The whole point of the channel is to show you a raw, unfiltered look into the lives of these people. Dressing them up in costumes or clothes that they don't normally wear as a show for the camera would defeat the whole purpose.

⬐ hombre_fatal

Perhaps it's what they wanted to wear or what they were already wearing (wrt the sex workers).

I've only watched a few interviews, but it tells a more provocative story than if they were to dress up differently for the camera. It's how some of these women walk the streets, so why avoid that part of their story?

⬐ bergenty

Why not? I like it better that way anyways.

⬐ 4oo4

The clothing choice is that of the interviewee, not the interviewer. If you approached the interview subjects on the street, they'd probably be wearing the exact same thing, since you're probably referring to the sex workers he interviews. He's not telling them to dress a certain way to get a reaction, he really just wants the interview subject to show what their lives are like. The way the interviews work is that the interview subjects walk in off the street and they just start talking.

The clothing isn't the issue, since there are lots of other videos on YouTube with women wearing less, that aren't (yet) problematic, so it's not the sexual content itself as much the context surrounding the sexual content. Corporate America prefers a Disneyfied version of reality, and anything that falls outside that they try to banish. They will tolerate sexual content as long as it promotes consumption and aligns with capitalist thinking.

Consider this Jay-Z song Big Pimpin', which glorifies the objectification of sex workers and women in general. Contrast that with Soft White Underbelly which humanizes the same types of people.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Cgoqrgc_0cM

Even though this is dealing with very similar subject matter and the women in it are wearing far less clothing, it will probably never be demonitized. Why? It's encouraging consumption and promoting the idea that being wealthy means you get to have lots of happy sex with women that will let you objectify them, because of your money. Also Jay-Z's wealth means he's more important and the rules apply to him differently (if at all).

Whereas Soft White Underbelly is showing a more sad and complicated view of sexuality and the objectification of human beings, one that doesn't promote consumption and glorification of wealth. Someone might watch that and realize that a sex worker selling their body for money isn't really that different than someone destroying their body working in an Amazon warehouse, or other jobs that require physical labor, and an idea like that is threatening to Corporate America.

I'm not singling out hip hop, but rather that's a song that's so misogynistic that even Jay-Z himself has disowned it:

https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/music/jay-z...

This is a huge loss, SWU is one of the best creators on YouTube and I've been really moved by some of his interviews. Pretty much all the creators I follow on YT are either self-censoring or not posting videos anymore, because of this nonsense. Kudos to him for continuing the work, I didn't know that his proceeds went back to the communities he's portraying so I definitely will be making a GoFundMe donation.

⬐ mjburgess

The interviewer is a bit of a "photography narcissist" and basically just created the channel to have interesting people to photograph. The interview angle was added later, and it wasn't something he cared about initially.

The impression I get is that it's best not to explore his motivations too much, as they're quite disappointing compared to what he's been able to create.

⬐ vogt

I love the channel content for all the reasons the GP states, but I always got the vibe the channel author was a bit of a creep with the way he speaks to some of the women who guest on the show

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

Hold on. Soft White Underbelly has NOT been demonetized by YouTube.

Some of the videos that Soft White Underbelly creates are demonetized, or as YouTube puts it, found to not be suitable for all advertisers.

Creating content on YouTube has been my full-time job for more than five years. There is a HUGE difference between a channel being kicked out of the Partner Program and videos being 'demonetized.' (Namely, that in the latter case, all of your other videos, past and future, can still earn revenue.)

Honestly, this just seems like the guy is trying to encourage people to pay for his "members only" content. I don't blame him for that, but afactual alarmist titles are not the right way to help him along.

YouTube's policies regarding advertiser friendliness are annoying, but they are mostly clear — and as far as I know, they have not substantively changed recently.

⬐ worstestes

“Some” in this case make up over 70% or so of his collection due to sexual content. I think that hits the demonetized territory.

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

1. So he says. I hope you realize that the creator has an enormous monetary incentive to lie about that, and that it is impossible to verify his claims.

2. "Demonetized," when describing a YouTube channel, means one thing and one thing only: that the channel has been kicked out of the YouTube Partner Program.

I don't know why you would adopt your own, materially-different, definition of a word whose definition is widely accepted. Doing so creates unnecessary confusion, and — particularly in this case — is highly misleading.

⬐ CommitSyn

Have you ever watched a Soft White Underbelly video?

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

Yes. How is that relevant?

⬐ lelandfe

> this just seems like the guy is trying to encourage people to pay for his "members only" content

Hm.

> My initial reaction was to put these videos on my subscription channel but I realized after doing that for a few weeks that the reason I'm doing this project is not to make money – it is to help create some awareness of what's going on in our country

> 100% of the money that I've made on YouTube since I've started has gone back into the communities that I shoot in – 100%

⬐ Tarq0n

What I've understood from other content creators, some of whom have actually showed their video management page, is that it's highly infectious. They get every new video they post demonetized instantly, even if they are still in the partner program. One example is Preach gaming, a fairly middle of the road channel which gets all its videos demonetized on upload for unclear reasons.

⬐ derac

I am highly concerned that YouTube is selling children's eyes to advertisers. They obscure this fact with YouTube kids and marking videos as not for kids. This is their business model. Why have content marked as not for kids at all? What they need is a section of youtube for HBO-like content.

They have allowed people to make a living there for years and will shut them down with no warning whenever they like or at the whim of a terrible algorithm (or report brigading). It is a horrible business relationship.

⬐ busterarm

It's disheartening to see so little consideration among the comentariat that it's possible for once that YouTube may have actually done the right thing here for a change in trying to curb exploitation-content on their platform.

⬐ bitcharmer

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that soft white underbelly was exploiting their interviewees? How?

⬐ busterarm

Use your critical thinking powers.

⬐ None

None

⬐ iforgotpassword

Care to explain why? I don't know that channel.

⬐ busterarm

Here's $50 to tell me your life story that I'm going to make $3-5/1k views on. If I make enough money I might come back for another video and give you more money.

No guarantees that you don't feed your addictions with this money though...but your addiction is good content anyway.

⬐ jayski

He's also saying on the video linked by OP, that he donates 100% of all revenue back into these troubled communities.

I get a feeling a lot of the people criticizing him haven't watched the channel. I've seen about 50 videos, and honestly cried with a lot of them. They've made me reevaluate my own life and reconsider how hard life is for others. It has also nudged me to donate time and money to particular communities that struck a chord with me.

I think it's great content.

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

> He's also saying on the video linked by OP, that he donates 100% of all revenue back into these troubled communities.

Sounds like the kind of thing someone would be transparent about. As far as I know, there is no evidence that any of his claims are true. They could be, but he has a huge monetary incentive to lie.

Also, his vague language is a bit of a red flag. I put money back into my community when I spend it. But I call that shopping, not altruism.

⬐ StanislavPetrov

>As far as I know, there is no evidence that any of his claims are true.

Perhaps you should spend 5 minutes researching what you know nothing about before you opine about it. In particular, there is a poor, inbred family in Appalachia that he has visited (and befriended) several times over the years and that the funds he raised have helped them move from their dilapidated trailer into an actual house, among other things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRY41kF_0Oc

⬐ Hallucinaut

If you're saying there's no evidence in terms of accounting audit for money going to addicts on Skid Row then, well, good luck with that bar of evidence.

I have seen him let the Whittaker family buy trolleys full of stuff from Walmart for their house. I have seen that prostitute (Angel maybe?) interviewed a second time after he paid for her rent and gave her money multiple times after the first video and it turned out she was just giving it to her pimp (and she doesn't refute any of this on camera).

So does he deserve total faith based trust, no, but it's easy to see enough of his videos where they are clearly benefiting from the funds and that's probably enough for many of us to say it's net positive.

⬐ nverno

You're treating it as if their life story is a zero-sum game, where it was worth 3050$ and he only gave them 50$. I've always given away my life story for free and don't feel gypped whatsoever.

⬐ busterarm

It's a fortunate position in life to not have to choose between getting your next fix and admitting to a pattern of criminality on camera.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEUh4FZIf8E

⬐ nverno

That's just your point of view. From mine, life is a long tumble down the stairs

⬐ honkdaddy

If someone paid me $50 to admit on camera I've broken laws in the past, I think I'd probably be more than happy to. Are you under the impression the police are going to start arresting people on Soft White Underbelly because they admit to doing drugs? That's not really how the American justice system works, from what I understand.

⬐ folkhack

Yea - I wouldn't.

I'd rather not have such direct representation of myself out there - invariably people would recognize you, and invariably they would pass the video around social groups. Just the way things work in the social media era.

Also, this could really hurt you if a video with this sorta subject matter/content would be passed around your place of work. This is about to get bitter so please take with a grain of salt: I've learned that most people are gossipy and will often not give people the benefit of the doubt. People judge others to bolster their ego and elevate their own social standing. Even if it was something out of your control like childhood trauma, people will still extrapolate their own opinions.

Then there's the "nothing's ever deleted from the internet" trope - even if I needed it taken down and the original uploader agreed, the content could easily exist elsewhere. I guarantee there's people doing reaction content to this.

All-in-all I functionally can't see the benefit of doing one of these outside of $... and I agree with other posters that it's problematic. It reminds me of photography class in college where all of these kids would photograph the homeless. Everyone thought they were brilliant by shining a light on poverty or something.... Really, they were just privileged asshole kids with savior complexes waving money in front of people who didn't have the option to turn it down; only to put these people on display in school galleries where the subject of the photo would never be allowed.

⬐ brokenmachine

From the videos on this channel that I've seen, I don't think there'll be many job interview panels that are subsequently shocked to find out their applicant has a history of drug use. You can pretty much tell from just the thumbnail that they've lived a very tough life.

Your comment smells a lot like claiming to know what's better for other adults than the choices they make.

Lots of people just want to have a voice, so their story can be heard.

⬐ honkdaddy

That makes sense. Honestly there are so many videos of me out there already which could hypothetically end my career, it's something I try not to stress about too much. I think if we're privileged enough to be having this conversation at all, it's probably tough for either of us to really put ourselves in the shoes of the folks asked to be subjects of these videos.

I do totally agree from a moral standpoint though, if I were to do a project like this, $50 is a tiny fraction of what I'd offer people. It's a tiny fraction of what I'd hope to offer _anyone_ working for my artistic vision, let alone the main talent. But I also know not everyone out there thinks like me, and sometimes artists are people I would otherwise call exploitive, immoral, or selfish, but there still remain cases where I believe the world was better off because of their art, even if they themselves were a total jerk.

I think almost any kind of media or art which makes many people more aware of what life is like for the 'underbelly' of society is probably still a good thing overall. Most of all, the last people I'd like making that decision for us are people who only have business incentives anyway, i.e. Google.

⬐ folkhack

> I think if we're privileged enough to be having this conversation at all, it's probably tough for either of us to really put ourselves in the shoes of the folks asked to be subjects of these videos

Eh, my parents hated each other, and subsequently took a great deal of it out on their kids - both emotionally and physically. Then my father died when I was 14. Within months my mom ended up dating, then married to a felon who had stole from his own pharmacy losing his license... Mom blamed me for her cancer... blah blah blah. I'm enough of a shit-show that I could potentially be content for that channel for trauma.

> I think almost any kind of media or art which makes many people more aware of what life is like for the 'underbelly' of society is probably still a good thing overall.

I share that anecdote because it backs up what you're saying about the value of the content... I've listened to stuff on there that's more the general mental health/generational trauma related stuff and have found it valuable. It helps me feel less isolated hearing people share stories that I can relate to.

I just feel like there's a weird line with addiction and poverty where there's potential conflict of interest - many of the folks who share their story on that channel aren't desperate by any means... I'm just conflicted over those who are =/

⬐ HardlyCurious

I haven't watch many of his videos, but I didn't get any sense of a predatory relationship. For what I saw, I was impressed with the content. He shows us a side of humanity normally left in the shadows. There is merit in that.

⬐ junon

This isn't at all how that channel works. Flagrant dismissal of a body of work is explicitly against the Hacker News guidelines. I suggest you review them at the bottom of this page.

⬐ busterarm

I'm well familiar and if dang wants to come and tell me so, he can.

I'm saying blatantly that Mark is on some weird white savior bullshit and that his channel exploits its subjects so the viewers can feel better about their lives.

Long from now we'll look back on it the same derisive way we look back at blaxploitation and women-in-prison movies.

⬐ Test0129

> some weird white savior bullshit

Pesky white people at it again! When will they stop?

Seriously though if your first response is to make a bigoted remark about the guy's skin color you need to seek professional help.

⬐ junon

You've not done a lot of research on this channel, have you?

⬐ busterarm

I'm not the first nor the last person to levy the exact same criticism.

Most of them from his own fucking subreddit.

⬐ derac

Moralizing and being a bigot at the same time, a classic combo.

⬐ bitcharmer

> Mark is on some weird white savior bullshit

What does Mark's race has to do with it? Would it be ok if he was black?

⬐ _bohm

On the contrary, I find most of his videos to be deeply humanizing of their subjects, who would probably be ignored or brushed aside in a normal day-to-day interaction by the typical viewer of the channel.

Also, speaking personally as someone who has a family member who suffers from addiction, I have found it valuable to listen to people speak candidly about their struggles to someone uninvested in their lives, in a way that my family member could never speak to me.

⬐ busterarm

Separate how viewing the content makes you feel from understanding the subject's ability to completely understand and consent to a contractual arrangement to have their story recorded, broadcast and sold.

When an addict-relative sells all of your valuables, are they in a proper state of mind or is their addiction ruling their life? Do they fully comprehend the outcome of their actions?

Most of these people are not in any proper state of mind to be able to sign on to appear on a show like this.

⬐ _bohm

Ok, so what kinds of things should a person in that state be considered capable of consenting to?

My experience is that treating addicts as ineligible to exercise their own agency only serves to further alienate them and fuel their abuse.

⬐ Test0129

> Most of these people are not in any proper state of mind to be able to sign on to appear on a show like this.

They are telling their story not making porn. You could gather the same information going to your local skid row and asking people to tell you how they got there. I don't know the details of the demonetization but I've watched the channel several times. It's enlightening and sad like all good documentaries should be. If you have information on the agreement they sign that no one else does here post it. Otherwise this seems like pure speculation and strawmanning of the motives of the guy who runs the channel.

⬐ meltyness

I wouldn't call the dismissal too far off. I mean, compare to something like Vice, where

- facts are regularly presented,

- multiple viewpoints are solicited and presented

SWB strips all that away. I'd go as far as to call it docxploitation, but I suppose "My 600 lb Life" has gotten away with parading the vulnerable around.

This likely isn't really targeted, or about content at its core, and is instead for the express purpose of boosting YouTube's revenue.

YouTube ads are currently more vulgar than this content.

⬐ mandmandam

Ew dude, no.

Vice knowingly smeared RMS, inexcusably. THey refused to acknowledge this or apologise for their role. They burned McAfee with an iPhone picture with location metadata. They're anti-journalism.

I don't know SWU, but people have pointed out that 100% of the profits go to ending poverty. Doesn't sound like something a docxploiter would do.

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

> people have pointed out that 100% of the profits go to ending poverty

As far as I know, there is no evidence of that beyond the creator's claims. What happened to skepticism? The creator has enormous economic incentives to lie.

If he is truly putting all of his channel's revenue "back into the communities that I shoot in" (whatever that means), why wouldn't he be proudly transparent about what that means.

How much money? Where has it gone? Can anyone verify it?

I would love to be wrong about this, but as far as I know the answers are:

Nobody knows. Nobody knows. No.

⬐ mandmandam

> The creator has enormous economic incentives to lie.

Not really. People don't watch his channel to fund communities.

> Nobody knows. Nobody knows. No.

Have you asked him?

> why wouldn't he be proudly transparent about what that means.

Why do people need to provide receipts on the internet for their good deeds? It's not like he's using the donated profits line as his main marketing device.

⬐ ConSeannery

He has stated in several interviews and previous videos that he gives away the money he makes on the channel. Watch the video linked, he says it again on it.

⬐ busterarm

He has a $10/mo subscription site with a forum.

Turning it into a tax writeoff doesn't make it less exploitative.

⬐ schnebbau

You can't write off tax on more than the amount you contribute, ergo he still pays the full amount on his subscription income.

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

Do you believe him, just because he says so?

⬐ concinds

Everyone on Earth is being paid less than they generate for their business. That is true for utterly everyone except equityholders. And your reasoning is completely self-defeating, unless you suggest that this YouTube channel should kidnap their interviewees and force them to get sober under duress. Soft White Underbelly is not the government.

BTW, YouTube still makes money off demonetized videos, since they increase overall viewer engagement; which nullifies your core point.

⬐ busterarm

No, they're just not outright banning him.

Demonitized content has _zero_ reach on YouTube. It's them telling you that they do not want you. There's no point to uploading new content when you're demonitized.

⬐ concinds

This is not true; demonetized videos still get recommended on all of YouTube's surfaces (homepage, recommendations sidebar, end-of-video suggestions).

⬐ switch007

Is that lying while telling the truth?

How often? How many people will see it? How many views vs monetized?

⬐ diydsp

From the alg's perspective, each video is a mutant offspring. It has hypothetical values in several contexts. On publication, those values get tested for a bit until the value converges. So new vids get a chance... but they're competing with known, larger quantities. Advertiser-edgy content has a signal attached to it saying "don't let this get tested much," in case it gets popular.

⬐ bitcharmer

How do you know how much the interviewees were paid?

Were they forced to do the interviews? Do you have evidence that shows they felted being exploited?

⬐ busterarm

What do you think the mental state is of his interviewees? How many of them do you think are in a reasonable state of mind to understand AND consent to any kind of contract? What about Amanda who literally got put into a conservatorship?

Keep in mind we're in a society that doesn't consider you able to consent if you're even a little bit drunk and we're talking about heavy drug users for the most part here.

⬐ Fricken

In documentary we don't typically pay people anything to tell us their life stories.

⬐ busterarm

But Mark does pay his subjects.

⬐ Nzen

People keep citing $50, but sometimes he pays more. This video with Exotic [0] mentions that he paid for her apartment and lifestyle expenses, to the tune of several hundred dollars a day, for a time. I have no idea how common that was, but it qualifies the 50/1050 split otherwise used to characterize his practice.

[0] https://youtu.be/nWwKePTgECA?t=36

⬐ zarzavat

It’s not exploitative to pay people for their time. It’s basic decency.

There’s three options for remuneration.

1. Pay nothing

2. Pay them for their time

3. Give them a large cut

If the contention is that they may be junkies then 3 is probably not a great idea, better to give the money to charity.

If the contention is that it’s exploitation then surely 2 is less exploitative than 1.

In the end, giving people a voice who don’t have one currently is the complete opposite of exploitation.

⬐ mtlmtlmtlmtl

It can be argued that 2 is more exploitative if they would never do it in 1, and are only doing it because they're desperate for their next fix, even though it's not going to improve their life.

⬐ stackola

Would it be better if he didn't?

⬐ concinds

Would it be more ethical not to pay? I don't get it.

Interview them for free, you're making money without compensating them. Interview them and give them part, you're exploiting them by underpaying them. Interview them and give them all profits, you're enabling their addiction. Give away the non-ad revenue, you're just abusing a tax writeoff. Don't give it away, you're enriching yourself.

Your economic ideology seems quite fluid, and seems to lack internal consistency.

⬐ treis

Gets murky when we're talking about prostitutes that funnel their money to/get it stolen by pimps. Also gets murky when we're talking about drug addicts who are going to use that money to buy drugs. Also gets murky when we're talking about people that are under the influence of drugs. They probably don't want a video out there of them blasted to the moon if they ever get clean.

⬐ brokenmachine

You would be shocked to learn how many of your coworkers use their paycheck to buy drugs.

⬐ dopidopHN

I don’t known that channel so I listen to the intro. He mention give back 100% back the « community »

Is that person having troubled relationship with percentage ? ( real question , I think I heard about that channel once before )

⬐ snshn

It's comical how you're eager to judge somebody supposedly exploiting their addiction, while you yourself aren't doing anything to help those people.

Haven't you thought that the "exploitation" may very well be beneficial to both parties... three parties, actually, since his videos are extremely popular. Haven't you thought that those interviewees have a better chance to get help or get noticed by somebody from their past who could reach out and try to help them?

And not everybody is an addict in his videos, just stories from the other side of life.

⬐ busterarm

You claim I don't do anything to help people with addiction without evidence, Does the dark side of the moon not exist because we can't see it?

First of all, you don't know shit. Second of all, I don't have to do anything to justify myself to you. Third of all, I've lost more friends to addiction and have helped more addicts recover than you have had birthdays. Shut the fuck up when grown folks is talking.

⬐ snshn

I'm old and experienced enough to be able to extrapolate from what people say, to be quite sure about what they're capable of by how they act and talk, their body language.

Your "good morals" stem from hypocrisy. You're exploiting the fact that he's supposedly exploiting somebody to feel better about yourself, to present yourself as noble, feel better about yourself. People who do that don't ever help others, at least nothing beyond attempts to elevate own ego and feel better about themselves. That's even worse than what you're accusing that content creator of doing.

I know a lot, like... damn, I wish I didn't know as much I do about life, wish I could be ignorant and oblivious, follow the childish if/else logic and just be another SJW who only complains and judges everyone left and right.

And I don't believe any of that in your last paragraph, neither about you losing friends nor helping anybody. And people don't have that many birthdays in their lifetimes, 50–100 at most, terrible tool of measure. The fact that you got mad at somebody here only shows you're emotionally immature, that means you have no ability to help other people who have emotional problems or problems with addiction, let alone yourself.

⬐ dang

Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how bad or wrong someone else's comments are or you feel they are.

Please review the site guidelines and don't do this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

⬐ emerged

Just about anything will get you banned here, because mods have a political axe to grind you dishonest bitch.

⬐ dang

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870

⬐ dang

Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how bad or wrong someone else's comments are or you feel they are.

Please review the site guidelines and don't do this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

⬐ busterarm

Noted.

Funny though that you chastise me after my response to personal attacks but never the rule-breaking personal attacks in the first place. Most of the time I let the personal attacks slide, but then those threads you seem to never see (because I never see these moderation responses when I do). My responses on the other hand will always be crass enough to get your attention.

So in either case I guess I just have to eat shit. Great community that you've got here.

I get that you can't be everywhere in every thread, but it sucks.

⬐ dang

It always feels like the other person started it and did worse. This is a super strong bias which we all seem to have (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). We can't allow that feeling to drive commenting here, because it's a recipe for a downward spiral (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

And of course it's also entirely possible that we didn't moderate some comments that we should have, in a thread where you got scolded instead. I can tell you for sure there's no personal reason for that—it's random. We just don't see everything that gets posted. We do try to see everything that gets flagged, but even that is too much sometimes. The fact that you're using words like "always" and "never" makes me think that the above-mentioned bias is an issue though. That's how it feels.

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is simply that we didn't see it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). You can help by flagging it or emailing us at [email protected].

⬐ graderjs

So these people shouldn't have a voice (be able to participate in any way in the commercial system the rest of us created), because we find their economic engagements to be "morally repugnant"? And yet the only "voice" they should have, should be permitted to have, is relegated to playing their accepted parts in the sex/vice industry their only "moral crime" is to talk about? Basically we want to mediate their economics and not allow them to speak up outside of the roles we want to put them in to. And we're going to pretend to justify we're doing that, in "their best interest", tacitly projecting the lies that: "we know what's best for them", and we get to decide their autonomy, not them.

So, on the one hand, we decry the fact that they seem to lack power and agency, while willingly with the other hand we strip them of what agency and power they do have by saying, "shut up, don't spend your money on that, this is for your own good."

Sounds fucked up and abusive to me. The people should talk if they want to. We shouldn't pretend that we know how to mediate that for them. If they want to expand the way they engage economically, and narratively, in society, then I'm not going to step in their way. I think it's good for them, if they want to do it. I think it's good to have their story told.

Maybe we're just unhappy their voices reveal our hypocrisy? Maybe should you think it through before you find a way to condemn-label something that perhaps you're just a little uncomfortable with. Examine yourself first, rather than projecting onto them, trying to further limit their access, is my unsolicited advice. Thanks

⬐ socialismisok

I think the parent is suggesting they should be paid more.

⬐ graderjs

Hmm, maybe. But I'm sure there's current of attitude, that some people have, where people think, any payment in exchange for narrative from the classes of the "downtrodden" is simply exploitation but I think that is both a disempowering perpetuation of an incorrect stereotype that tries to rob people of agency, plus a tactic of the upper classes to keep people down.

But then again even giving voice to class itself may be an incorrect stereotype that's disempowering. Uuhh...It's difficult to find the right language but I think we should just see people as people.

And that's what I'm really speaking to here even if I'm not replying to the intention of the parent comment, it doesn't matter: what I'm saying is still valuable and important.

⬐ socialismisok

It's a fine line. It depends a lot on who is producing the content and why. What's their objective. There's definitely folks who will create films and documentaries to exploit the subject, and folks who do it to highlight the subject. No silver bullet, unfortunately.

⬐ graderjs

Yeah, but what I'm saying is still valuable and important: I mean, who are we to judge? We don't know it's exploitation. From the outside it's pretty hard to see that, the people involved have to decide for themselves. And if they have decided we have to respect that, I think.

Unless you see the full picture, how it's all made, all the connections between the people: as an audience member, consuming the content, I mean, you can't tell, no way.

Maybe even being an audience member is exploitative...anyway. So I think you got to err on the side of caution as an outsider who has no idea, and just like not try to impose, and not call for any sort of curtailing of such content under the moral panic that "it's exploitative", which may just a NIMBY sort of way of silencing them "for their own good."

⬐ realsolipsist

This is disappointing, and while there might be some unknown factors here, it does seem to follow a concerning trend.

While demonetization isn’t technically censorship, it is discouragement and disincentivizing, which can have a similar effect as censorship without its messiness.

⬐ that_guy_iain

Honestly, I don't think Google cares per se. They just don't want the hassle of another adpocalypse. The issue comes from advertisers not wanting to be seen promoting certain things. Like if you're advertising insurance you don't want some group of self rightous people to not use your service just because you advertised on YouTube and they showed that video next to a stripper talking about doing coke in the bathroom.

⬐ concinds

> Honestly, I don't think Google cares per se. They just don't want the hassle of another adpocalypse. The issue comes from advertisers not wanting to be seen promoting certain things.

I think it's important to be very clear on the correct timeline. Tiny activist groups like "Sleeping Giants" put pressure on advertisers, and got a hashtag trending (back when it was easy to get hashtags trending, before Twitter changed it so that they had to manually approve each hashtag before it showed up on the right-hand sidebar). A few advertisers listened, and pulled their ads from YouTube. It was obviously absolutely incredibly insanely obvious that they were bluffing. YouTube is the most-visited site in the world after Google Search. But YouTube folded instead of calling their bluff; now here we are.

This isn't something anybody really wanted. Advertisers did it to look good for a few days on Twitter, in a very low-ad-spend period anyway (didn't cost them anything). They were planning on letting YouTube make a tiny concession, and resuming their ads. YouTube didn't have to fold; they just panicked. They could have given Fortune 500 advertisers the ability to blacklist channels their ads appear on, and it would have gone away. They mismanaged that crisis completely (and it was far from the last).

⬐ retcore

I'm fascinated to learn more specifically about this sequence of events. Can you suggest any good sources?

>They could have given Fortune 500 advertisers the ability to blacklist channels their ads appear on

That's just... I don't have words to describe,but the sheer laziness in failing to write what any non expert outsider would probably write down among the first few obvious requirements for a advertising platform, is stunning.

⬐ concinds

> I'm fascinated to learn more specifically about this sequence of events. Can you suggest any good sources?

I witnessed it in real-time and discussed it with marketer/advertiser friends who have good industry knowledge. I don't know if anyone documented the behind-the-scenes. Note that I may have misremembered the name of the main group behind it (might not have been Sleeping Giants back then).

⬐ that_guy_iain

The thing is most companies don't want the extra work in finding who they don't want to be associated with. They would much rather the platform didn't allow the possibility of their ads being shown next to content of a specific type.

YouTube isn't banning the content, they're just saying they can't show ads next to it which honestly, seems like common sense.

⬐ concinds

> The thing is most companies don't want the extra work in finding who they don't want to be associated with

It's a PR solution; it's not supposed to please engineering, systematizing left-brained people, but to calm down a Twitter mob. YouTube had more than enough market power to simply force advertisers to comply, and advertisers were begging to be given a tiny concession in order to end their boycott while saving face.

This solution would have avoided the adpocalypse entirely.

⬐ that_guy_iain

> It's a PR solution; it's not supposed to please engineering,

What does the an advertiser having to spend countless hours finding which channels they don't want to be associated with have to do with engineering? Nothing.

⬐ concinds

Grammar.

"It's not supposed to please engineering-minded people, systematizing people, left-brained people." I'm talking people like you, who indeed don't think like the advertisers who just wanted a braindead controversy to go away; solving it was unnecessary for YouTube or for advertisers.

⬐ that_guy_iain

Grammar.

⬐ threatofrain

According to the video, YT is demonetizing all sex-related content. That's likely to be a popular move regardless of whether people understand the full implications of that decision. It's in YT's interest to make money, but they have to balance that desire with perceived threats from legislature or public sentiment.

⬐ defrost

"sex related content" is broad ill defined brush.

The recent case of the father sending groin region photographs to doctor via google (?) services and being flagged for "inapropriate child content" is one example of where exceptions should be made.

I'm now aware of this channel - I have no issue with its content and feel it should have as much access to income streams as any other vlogger.

There are audiences for all manner of content, surgeons have an interest in "gore" videos that relates to injury, treatment, and things often pixelated out.

Those in the social sciences want to see stories such as these in this channel to better understand issues and impacts of policy.

This is an area that needs better human judgement and oversight, if youtube wants to deter OnlyFansOG style videos then they should do so in a manner that doesn't also swat channels such as this example.

⬐ threatofrain

YouTube has more reason to be afraid of false positives than false negatives. By refusing to monetize all sex-related content, they now won't make a mistake which the public or government might punish them for. I think the public is far more okay with the idea that YT doesn't fund sex-related content than vice versa, and therein lies the source of risk for YT.

⬐ concinds

This is a self-inflicted problem for YouTube, and with each move they make in this direction, they more indelibly associate themselves with the idea that they endorse each and every ad on their platform, as well as where it's shown. They could have told Sleeping Giants to go fuck themselves back in 2016 and avoided the whole adpocalypse timeline; but now they started and can't stop. People only see it as "YT funding sex-related content" because YouTube repeatedly endorsed that way of reframing and redefining video ad revenues.

Imagine if instead, it was framed as: "YouTube makes money off YouTubers' content; their 45% cut is entirely parasitic, YouTube is price-gouging and rent-seeking due to stronger network effects than any other platform on Earth; and YouTube creators are entitled to keep 100% (or, let's say 90% after hosting and fees) of the revenue they generate, not 55%." (yeah, Google's cut is 45%, not 30%, hah. 30% is practically a gift.)

See how bad that would be for Google? So they go all in on the colorful, bubbly, "we care about you"-teddy-bear, 'Sleeping Giants' train, because they'd rather have progressivism than "Marxism." I just wonder how it's been so effective, and why they garner so much less criticism than the App Store for doing far worse (there's no "video platform duopoly" unlike App Stores, it's just a monopoly).

⬐ sureglymop

But what I don't get is... What's wrong with funding sex-related content? And what legislature is against that? Personally i was just under the impression that YouTube is doing that to keep the content family friendly for their advertisers. Instead of all this, if we all collectively normalized this type of subjectively normal content, it would cease to be a problem. It's also difficult, because what's considered as "sexual" changes over time. It's even a little mind boggling to me that female breasts are still so sexualized but that's a topic for another day.

⬐ tinus_hn

What’s wrong with it is that advertisers, who are YouTube’s customers, don’t want to advertise next to anything that has to do with sex. They will get very angry if YouTube shows their ads next to a video that has to do with sex.

To avoid making their customers angry, YouTube doesn’t show any ads next to videos that have anything to do with sex.

Next, because these videos don’t provide any revenue for YouTube they don’t have a big incentive to keep them online. In fact they do have an incentive to be quick at pulling them down.

⬐ admax88qqq

> if we all collectively...

Aye there's the rub. Not everyone thinks the way you do.

⬐ Test0129

You're reducing this too far. It's simple. Advertisers may have several reasons to not be shown on sex-related content. Regardless of how mundane that content may be. The first and most obvious reason is demographic. People who tend to be sex positive (or whatever the term is now) tend to have certain purchase patterns associated with certain lifestyles, political ideologies, and age groups. They may not sell a product and don't want to pay for ad space. Next, it may be off-brand for them to do so anyway. It might make sense for Trojan to place an ad on a video about the proper use of condoms, but not Cheerios. Third is political neutrality. Since our current society is on a perpetual witchhunt and reduces people and entire companies into the sum of their political views it's often easier to simply take no stance. It's better to not do anything then do something and then tomorrow it's "bad" or wrongthink.

Finally, sex-related content is a hot button issue related to children. One "sex positive" state, California, just passed a law to come up with yet another way to "protect the children". If you demonetize all of the content with broad strokes you can go to the states and say you comply with their rules.

It's far, far more complicated than "collective normalization". One could even argue that could have blowback that we can't measure. Sex-related content extends far beyond a simple female breast or a tutorial on using a condom.

⬐ DoItToMe81

I have no idea if it's still the case, but demonetized videos used to appear lower, or not at all, in the search.

⬐ greenthrow

Demonetization is effectively censorship on Youtube. If your video is demonetized Youtube won't recommend it and will deprioritize it in search results. It's almost a shadowban.

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

Full-time YouTuber here. This is unfortunately true.

YouTube's official position is that the monetization status of a video is not a factor in search and discovery, and that is probably true. But according to YouTube, all of the factors that impact advertiser friendliness (read: monetization) are factors in search and discovery.

⬐ roenxi

It goes to a weird microcosm situation where typing in http://not-youtube.com is somewhere between an insurmountable hurdle and an impossible feat. I remember that Fran woman [0] who was on HN a few weeks ago who just wasn't interested in moving off YouTube under thematically similar conditions, she flat out refused to consider Odysee in her video.

If YouTube's advertisers don't want to be funding more arty or niche content, then there needs to be a 2nd platform that caters to arty content and has niche advertisers. This stuff that is getting demonitised all looks pretty interesting, there has to be a market here that YouTube is giving up. Even if maybe it is small.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/c/FranBlanche/videos

⬐ fortran77

Those alternative platforms just don't make sense. And Odysee is a cesspool.

⬐ honkdaddy

This is a shame. There are some uncomfortable conclusions which one can reach hearing people in such dire positions being completely honest about what brought them there, but giving them a voice at all is incredibly valuable, even if what they say isn't necessarily what people who help them want to hear.

My uncle was a daily heroin user most of his adulthood. I remember him telling me one of his only regrets is not finding heroin sooner, it was the only thing that made him happy. It brought (synthetic) joy into a life which a poor, short, confused, single man in rural ON never would have experienced otherwise. He spent the last couple years of his life shooting up in a cheap rural cottage, financially supported by the government and his extended family. He overdosed many times and died young of cancer, but I do wonder how his story would be interpreted by my more progressive colleagues who like to talk about addiction as if all we need to solve the problem are safe injection sites, less cops, and more lenient sentencing. He had the safest injection site imaginable and the incredibly lax Canadian drug laws; it seems like what he needed most was to be part of a society which didn't encourage and enable his choices. I think finding a woman who loved him, even if just for a fleeting moment, might have helped him too. More than anything, I wish my parents had kept going back and hadn't given up and listened to the advice the government workers gave, which was that some people are beyond help, and providing them with their fix and a place to shoot up is the best thing you can do.

Tim was my godfather and my favorite uncle growing up. He's the one who told me some people's brains like drugs so, so much more than others, and if I can, to stay away from them. I miss him all the time.

I think channels like Soft White Underbelly are great because they allow people to form opinions on complicated, human-centric topics without the political and social commentary that come when big corps try to enter the arena. Trust me, if Fox, CNN, Disney, or Buzzfeed were trying to tell Tim's story, you would essentially end up watching an advertisement for an American political party.

⬐ sirsinsalot

Being Liberal about drug use and addiction as you describe isn't about simple acceptance.

Safe sites and non-punishment are a means to non-judemental paths to treatment and finding other sources of happiness ... not enablement.

⬐ honkdaddy

You're right, I definitely made the stance out to be a lot more simple than it really is, I know there's a tonne of nuance to this topic.

I think all I was trying to say is in my limited experience, addiction and recovery seem to be processes so much better understood at an individual level than they do from a macro perspective. I don't think there's much at all the Canadian government could have done from a legislative or social perspective to bring Tim to recovery, I think my family, given our life-long relationship with him, maybe possibly could have.

⬐ pavlov

> "I remember him telling me one of his only regrets is not finding heroin sooner, it was the only thing that made him happy. [...] More than anything, I wish my parents had kept going back and hadn't given up and listened to the advice the government workers gave, which was that some people are beyond help"

Is there something specific you think your parents could have done? It seems like an extraordinarily tall order to externally replace the only source of happiness in someone's life without their co-operation.

⬐ honkdaddy

That's a good question, I don't really know. I guess I just have a hard time accepting that when I was a teenager, my folks were aware that our uncle (my god father) was 40min away using every day, but as an extended family we'd agreed we were no longer going to be trying to change that. I think it was decided they'd rather him at least out of harms way and at peace than him going back to prison.

I'd probably end up the exact same way. I was hospitalized recently and was given hydrocodone for the first time in my life, I begged the doctor not to give it to me again, regardless of my pain levels, because it was the nicest I remember feeling in years and immediately just wanted more and more. Opiates terrify me like nothing else, largely because I know that if the circumstances were different, I'd probably be telling my future god son the same thing, that there's no better feeling on earth.

It's absolutely a tall order, maybe even an impossible one. I really don't know what I or my parents could have done differently, I just wish Tim was still here.

⬐ pavlov

Thank you for the reply. This is not an addiction I’m at all familiar with (just plain old alcoholics in my family), so it’s very informative and helpful. Deeply sorry for your loss.

⬐ _nalply

I hate ads. It's intrusive information. A few, some or many people would prefer to decide when they get information about a product. It seems a status quo for many people that advertisement finances a lot of things, however I posit that this is often the wrong or inefficient way causing external costs. I don't have an answer but I have a vision about a future where we don't need to finance ourselves this desperately like now.

Now we have many people depending on money from advertisement. I feel sad about that.

⬐ nullc

> It's intrusive information.

intrusive misinformation.

⬐ Test0129

Have you watched TV in the last 50 years? All television, radio, etc relies on ad revenue. The difference is that those ads tend to be better targeted because the channels/stations tend to be granular enough to figure out good things to run.

The problem is, now, that any advertiser can run on any video. If I am watching a woodworking video I shouldn't get an ad for dawn soap. It would make sense for a brief ad on tools, or a wood supplier, or something which I might even appreciate because it lets me know something exists.

It's not ads. It's the increased quantity of them and the low signal to noise ratio. Ads are useful, being inundated with them is not. It's further made worse by the average youtube video's quality going straight down to nothing over the 10 years. It's mostly "professionals". At this point, I'd rather go back to watching TV.

⬐ mandmandam

> Have you watched TV in the last 50 years? All television, radio, etc relies on ad revenue.

Yes, and that's been a horror that Lovecraft and Orwell combined wouldn't comprehend. The uncountable hours of human eyeball time wasted utterly; worse than wasted; used to whitewash the reputations of criminals and scumbags.

For what? To sponsor "news" that itself is a commercial? For TV and radio that leaves people dumber than they'd be without it?

Billionaire media moguls have done very well. Entrenched political interests have done great. Fossil fuel fucks and tobacco companies, pharma and insurance, polluters and propagandists have all done very well indeed - for themselves.

... The rest of us - not so much. Cheap junk, rotting minds, hyper saturated nonsense killing thought itself.

> The difference is that those ads tend to be better targeted

The problem is NOT the targeting. The problem is the unfathomable scale of the negative externalities.

⬐ pmyteh

There is non-advertising-supported television and (especially) radio. The BBC and other public broadcasters fund themselves with tax or licence fee income. And when you have small children, avoiding the incessant advertising for toys by putting on CBeebies is a godsend. It's also has really good shows, as it turns out.

Radio is easier because radio broadcasting is much cheaper. At least over here there are BBC stations (locally and nationally), and things like student and hospital radio that are run by volunteers and have no or minimal advertising.

I'm not saying these models are better than ad-funded media, but the ubiquity of ads isn't an actual prerequisite of media. There have also been subscription channels without advertising (before cable companies decided to double-dip) and you can imagine other funding models like television-as-propaganda (either by an oligarch or an unfriendly state), or as philanthropy (why not run ad-free 'worthy' television as a modern version of the Carnegie Library?)

⬐ paulsutter

Could Youtube allow another network to monetize content they don’t want to monetize? Challenges would include policing such ads for malware or ad content that would then appear alongside the Youtube brand

As unfortunate as this is, even the channel owner agrees the content does (at least technically) violate the policy

Maybe the larger question is why Youtube is under so much pressure to change old policies that were working for many years

⬐ concinds

Forcing ad-supported platforms to allow competing ad networks & auctions would be a pretty brilliant piece of legislation. They would need to be forced, though (https://searchengineland.com/google-allegedly-creates-ad-mon...).

⬐ boomboomsubban

Doesn't this already happen with sponsors? YouTube creators are already free to get external revenue sources for their videos.

Maybe someone could develop a way to automate some portion making it easier, and it'd be hard to replicate the income from targeted advertisement with click tracking using permanent in video sponsorships, but it seems possible.

⬐ dmartzol

I pay for youtube premium to not see ads and I love this channel. Now if I keep paying none of that money will go to this channel.

But advertisers have a say to where their money goes.

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

That is not true at all. The channel has not been demonetized. They are still in YouTube's Partner Program. The title of this post is alarmist and afactual.

⬐ secondcoming

He’s a bit naive about what advertisers want when he says something along the lines of ‘advertisers would love to have their ad shown to 200k users’.

‘Brand Safety’ is a huge thing in advertising and there are companies out there that classify webpages based on their content. Premium advertisers don’t want their ads shown alongside content that can be deemed scandalous or unsafe. Sex obviously falls into this category, a more recent example was Covid-related content; advertisers wanted nothing to do with it.

I’m guessing here, but it seems that YT lacks to ability to guarantee premium advertisers that their ads won’t appear on unsafe content and so they demonitise the whole channel.

That said, the amount of garbage ads I get shown on YT is astounding, I doubt those advertisers care where their ads get shown.

⬐ im3w1l

I don't get it. Like so much news is negative. No ads next to sex? No ads next to news of an economic downturn? No ads next to war in Ukraine? No ads next to funeral of Queen Elisabeth? With that reasoning, are they just gonna demonetize news entirely?

⬐ donatj

Yes. It seems bizarre to me. There are ads in the physical Sunday newspaper right next to a story about a murder. I don't assume the advertiser supports murder.

Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick.

This seems easily solvable if Google just strong-armed them. Stand up and say "We will serve your ads on all our content or none of it". Like it really seems like they have the demographic advertisers want. There'd be some gnashing of teeth, but they'd get over it I'm sure.

⬐ concinds

> Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick.

Forget about "people". "People" don't think anything, do anything, or change anything.

A Twitter account ran by two marketers & copywriters ("Sleeping Giants") copied Gamergate's tactics, went viral, and, by making advertisers fear a botted hashtag damaging their brand, these two marketers singlehandedly made YouTube, Facebook, etc more censorious and delete-happy. The effects are still felt today.

It's one of the best viral marketing experiments run in the 2010s after #Kony2012. Absolutely brilliant.

⬐ jwond

> Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me.

I think from the advertisers’ perspective it may also be about just wanting to avoid a negative association. If an ad for a product runs on a video of an interview with a prostitute, then there’s a risk that people might form some association (perhaps unconsciously) between that product and prostitution, or even just an association between the product and any negative emotions from watching the video.

It may not be completely logical, but emotions are often not completely logical.

⬐ Maken

The Sunday newspaper has limited physical space and probably justifies the ad placement on layout constraints.

Google, on the other hand, has built a multi-billion empire over the premise that they can show every single ad to potential consumers.

So, when Google is showing your ads to people interested in porn, violence and political controversial topics, it is by extension implying that they are your target audience and the ones your product is designed for.

⬐ charcircuit

The ad spots will just be less valuable. There will always be someone willing to advertise no matter how bad a the surrounding content, but with less competition there value is lower.

⬐ Dalewyn

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and argue that it is next to impossible in the best of circumstances to successfully prove a negative.

It's like trying to prove god(s) don't exist. You can keep on arguing, but ultimately you can't prove the negative with absolute certainty without going to insane ends.

Youtube's algorithms could be either hot garbage or the best thing since sliced bread, but it doesn't matter. Youtube can never prove certain ads will never play on certain videos, so the only options are to refuse such requests from advertisers (which is unacceptable for Youtube) or just blanket block certain videos from playing ads period.

⬐ pydry

>or just blanket block certain videos from playing ads period.

Yeah except they dont do that. They just play ads and keep all the cash.

⬐ kelnos

> Youtube can never prove certain ads will never play on certain videos

Er, what? Sure, they absolutely can, and your god analogy is... not actually analogous. Perhaps YT has chosen not to build a system that allows them fine-grained control over allowing -- or not allowing -- specific ads on specific videos, but that's not the same thing.

⬐ bambax

Porn sites live on ads; there are many advertisers that think this is fine.

Maybe the world needs an alternative YT for sensitive/alternative content, funded by advertisers that would be ok with it?

Or YT/Google could just not care; what would brands do? Stop advertising on all Google properties? Good luck with that.

⬐ Tao3300

It certainly hasn't stopped them from running DraftKings and FanDuel ads on his videos anyway. Maybe "pimp interview" and "brothel worker" aren't on the algorithm's pearl-clutch list yet.

It's also sickeningly puritanical to lump these videos in as "sexual content" like it's something exploitative that someone's getting off to. This isn't that at all.

⬐ Semaphor

It’s anything. We have books and workshops for erotic photography (tiny percentage, below 1% of books and about 5% of workshops). Just those trigger the algorithms to lower brand safety ratings if they are allowed to show up on the same page (even if the ad is at the top and the book-cover is shown several pages of scrolling below)

⬐ masswerk

This is why these platforms won't be a "marketplace of ideas", ever.

There's a certain differences between a public and providing a platform as a private enterprise, and chances are that the commercial interests won't align with what maintaining a public or a true representation of it may afford.

(BTW, HN is doing a great job in providing a platform to a specific public. But this is only, because HN is not the primary source of income for Y Combinator. Rather, this is a strategic investment, which happens to strategically align itself with the interests of this specific public. But I doubt if this could serve as a general blueprint. And it could be gone in a moment.)

⬐ busterarm

With his partnership with Lima Jevremovic and what happened to Amanda I'm not surprised at YouTube and advertisers wanting no part of it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see criminal charges at some point in the future.

⬐ honkdaddy

It helps to provide some context when making comments like this. Most HN readers don't follow YouTube drama, so at least suggesting what you think the criminal charges would relate to would help a lot.

To help others, the first result I found about this Lima Jevremovic character was:

> Founder, Lima Mora has lived through the implications of severe mental health illness first hand through loved ones. The Jevremovic Institute of Behavior and Brain Sciences (JIBBS) was bloomed from a desire to create tools to improve mental healthcare, research and innovations and make those tools available globally to all that need them.

A Mixed Reality Experience Designer, Mora specializes in Digital Health. She is well known in the tech community for her speaking engagements and role as an ambassador for bridging innovative technology with healthcare and providing insight on the emerging markets of VR/AR and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Seems like another entrepreneur trying to make it in the exhausting scene of health digitalization. What am I missing here?

⬐ busterarm

I said everything that needs to be said in my other comment. I don't have to do research for you. Lima specializes in patient brokerage -- juggling her patients between multiple rehab clinics and putting them into conservatorships to control their bodies and finances.

And just because people may like this channel doesn't mean it's actually a positive thing. Everyone likes watching train wrecks, afterall.

Mark Laita's channel is pretty exploitative and IMO has no place on YouTube. Soft White Underbelly is a lot like people rubbernecking a car crash.

⬐ honkdaddy

Thank you for the reply! This is exactly what I was hoping to see. Exactly like I pointed out, if you're going to make such strong statements about such fringe communities, it helps to provide some context. I wasn't asking you to do research, just to actually make your commentary a bit more useful for the good of the community. :)

Most folks on here don't have the interest or time to research random YouTubers we've never heard of. Clearly it's an area you feel strongly about, so spending an additional 30s writing an explanation for why people on HN _should_ care, or where they should look, is a great start. Thanks again!

⬐ concinds

> What am I missing here?

Every online micro-niche always attracts huge drama; whether travel vlogging, some zen Buddhist forums, "truecrime" fans, TCAP fans. How likely you are to encounter drama has zero correlation to how justified the drama is; its' just omnipresent.

⬐ honkdaddy

Definitely agree on that. Part of what I like about HN commentary is getting to zoom in on the juicy, interesting parts of small communities without having to sift through alllll the history. I don't have the online attention span to dig into a micro-niche anymore, I'm just here to interview folks more knowledgable than I am :)

⬐ 2mol

Can you elaborate? I have no idea what any of this means in context.

⬐ busterarm

There's a lot of recent youtube and other content covering the situation if you google Lima's name with Amanda.

Patient brokerage is a serious area of organized corruption within our medical system and it's disgusting.

Lima's program has a 6 step process where step 1 is "conservatorship or jail".

⬐ aliqot

"Patrick Cc:" has a video that goes into it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU1V2GM1oTI

TL;DR - It's someone who was involved in the videos at one point, runs a new-style recovery program, patient from video attends recovery program, dies under odd circumstances. SWU does not give much detail post-events.

⬐ datatrashfire

I wonder how many of the commenters shrieking exploitation are gladly devoting their abilities to creating more invasive tracking and ad tech.

⬐ werber

I don’t understand why he doesn’t directly name the organizations he supports or in what way he benefits the communities he’s working in, outside of this video I had a vague awareness of the channel but that lack of transparency outside of “I give a 100%back to the community” sounds like it could be just spending money in those communities?

⬐ atmosfera

He takes donations and doles them out to interview subjects.

Recently he had a bit of a scandal where he'd been funneling a massive amount of cash to a sex worker who was exploiting him for it, she in turn being exploited by her pimp who was taking the cash.

⬐ SpelingBeeChamp

Wow. Evidence?

⬐ anotherhue

The original name of the Blue Oyster Cult (this is not they).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_%C3%96yster_Cult

⬐ Applejinx

That was my first thought as well.

⬐ m1gu3l

“got ‘em”

⬐ cachvico

Turns out both are references to a Churchill quote (which apparently has even older origins still) - https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Churchill-refer-to-Italy-as-th...

⬐ ChrisRR

I can't remember the last time youtube made a change that was liked by the community

⬐ etchalon

“Algorithmic advertising placement at scale produces weird edge cases.”

⬐ tedk-42

Grown to be one of my favourite channels. It's a real shame that the algorithms that be at youtube have struck down Mark's revenue stream like this :(

⬐ adultSwim

Putting the advertising issue to the side, I think this account is exploitative and uses questionable methods for producing videos.

⬐ croes

That's why in capitalism it isn't necessary to put inconvenient people in prison like in Russia or China

We simply take the your income and payment options.

No PayPal, Mastercard or Visa for you, no money from ads.

You can say want you want but sooner or later you run out of money. Free but broke

⬐ None

None

⬐ drewcoo

Softwhite's content might seem like useful ethnography, but the choices of people interviewed, the interview style (obviously because he's paying them), and the way they're all sampled, the hidden narrative . . .

This interviewer is not Studs Terkel. Not just speaking to average people on the street.

⬐ honkdaddy

If you're going to make comments which deliberately call out a political or social agenda, please just be respectful to the community and explain what you actually mean. This isn't Twitter or reddit, it's HN.

How would you describe the 'the hidden narrative' that's being pushed here? To extend, do you personally think that channels which push narratives you don't support should be demonetized?

⬐ polytely

What do you mean by hidden narrative, can you expand on that.

⬐ SnowHill9902

www.rumble.com

⬐ Jemm

Youtube demonetizing Soft White Underbelly is an example of the Toxic Positivity problem in the western world right now.

⬐ SilverBirch

I honestly think that Youtube's monetization system has done a lot more harm than good. It's allowed content creators to completely abandon the business side of their own business. What's slowly become clear is that there is only a small niche of content creators that Youtube advertising really works for. For big brands, it doesn't work, they can work out their own advertising deal and demand a massive premium for this, think things like Mr Beast, beauty vloggers etc. Then you've got small creators, they don't do enough volume to actually drive any advertising revenue. Youtube might be showing adverts across millions of creators but the payout is pennies, these people are better off running Patreons for their true fans. Finally, you have the high quality content creators, that go off to subscription services like Nebula because their investment in the content is never going to be paid for through the crappy CPM you get at Youtube.

The good news for Soft White Underbelly is what I've just said above - look, there are plenty of business models out there that can work, and they're actually much more valuable revenue streams than Youtube ads. The bad news is, what exactly is Youtube at this point if all of their high value content is disintermediating their revenue model? Well, advertising to kids, which is minefield, advertising on music videos, which they're doing worse than Spotify, or advertising on things like Podcasts, which are adverts on content that you otherwise would get ad free elsewhere.

⬐ beebmam

Agree with all of your points. It is also worth examining how monetization changes the kinds of videos that get created, and the way content creators cater to their audiences for maximum engagement.

⬐ solarmist

I mostly agree, but I also think this wouldn’t be obvious or even hinted at without YouTube running this experiment. Also, most of these creators would never have started without the YouTube model.

So I feel like, using the YouTube model, should be used more as bootstrapping step while you find a more sustainable revenue model. Or you’ll forever be subjected to the whims of the algorithm.