Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Glares t1_j2wbqq3 wrote

Regarding the demonetisation policy:

>YouTube and its sister company Google (both owned by Alphabet), first suspended all advertising in Russia last week after the Russian government asked the tech giant to stop allowing any ads in the country related to the invasion of Ukraine, which started on Feb 24. But YouTube went a step further on Thursday, stopping Russian creators from making any money off of a large percentage of their audiences.

>“This means that Russian creators won’t be able to monetize content from viewers in Russia, but can still make money from ads and other monetization products shown to users in countries outside of Russia,” the spokesperson continued.

So they still can profit over every other country, just not Russians. This means a channel in English with large international appeal (such as this one) will be much less effected than one targeting a local Russian audience. This doesn't seem like the most unfair solution to a company like Alphabet pulling out of Russia.

51

DrDiddle t1_j2wyatq wrote

Alphabet tolerates huge amounts of pro Taliban, pro CCP, and pro Russian content on YouTube. Like to the extent that it is dangerous , especially the pro Taliban content.

14

guy180 t1_j2x4xp0 wrote

What do you expect them to have sensors that speak other languages? That’d eat away at profits

3

takatu_topi t1_j2ycwfx wrote

Except in very egregious instances, it is probably better to let content of a variety of viewpoints exist instead of trying to police which ones are dangerous. It is definitely easier. For the Russian creators it is not about policing their viewpoints, but stopping monetization (which could also reasonably be argued for or against).

0

arcumnequi t1_j2x6jh6 wrote

I mean, freedom of expression doesn't always mean freedom of choosing the right side, whatever the right side may be.

−6

DrDiddle t1_j2xabh1 wrote

They love to have it both ways is the problem. They can censor whatever they want because “we are a private company “ but have zero liability for allowing literal terrorist content to propagate.

5

arcumnequi t1_j2xs4ox wrote

Yes, they do. Social Media sites are private platforms, which users pay in data to access.

0

12YearWait t1_j2wuk5m wrote

That is pretty fucked up, given corporate complicity with other nations' illegal actions and invasions.

2

Desperate-Lemon5815 t1_j2wwrln wrote

Literally everyone is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is therefore always an extremely weak criticism. Big companies are too massive to always have consistent policy all the time.

0

12YearWait t1_j2xmoyx wrote

The purpose of pointing out such hypocrisy isn't to just point it out. It's to invite speculation and investigation into the cause behind inconsistent, unfair and unbalanced applications of moral rules.

2

Desperate-Lemon5815 t1_j2xp2ht wrote

So instead of inviting good discussion, you should just start it. Why do you think they're being hypocritical here?

−1

12YearWait t1_j2xqaew wrote

Did you not read my first comment?

2

Desperate-Lemon5815 t1_j2xv8be wrote

Yes, I am referring to how you simply ask a question instead of doing any thinking or analysis or argumentation yourself.

−1

12YearWait t1_j2xvyhg wrote

I didn't ask any questions. I think you're confused.

2

AnotherGit t1_j2xccim wrote

Idk, I understood it differently. I mean the spokespersons conclusion in itself is understandable but what does "But YouTube went a step further on Thursday, stopping Russian creators from making any money off of a large percentage of their audiences." mean? It very much seems like more than just Russian audiences because what else does "one step further" mean if all advertisement IN Russia was already suspeded before this "further step"?

0