dAVe80 Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said: The moon tonight is so beautiful. Hippy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 10, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 10, 2017 Must. Not. Howl. Ah **** it I'm waking the neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 11 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said: The moon tonight is so beautiful. Did you see it on Sunday? Jupiter was clearly visible just underneath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 the photos of same old smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Ad Revenues for 'youtubers' seems to be plummeting, good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 12, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Dr_Pangloss said: Ad Revenues for 'youtubers' seems to be plummeting, good. It's not good actually. It's to do with a restriction on freedom of speech. Basically if you're a vlogger and you decide this week to talk about a news topic that is loosely related to religion or politics or race or anything that could in any way be deemed controversial (there is a list out there somewhere), then your video will be black-flagged by youtube and get no revenue. Net result, in the interests of your revenue you end up not making that video. Not making what may very well be valid points that result in wider discussion. You end up making bubblegum videos of little value, and the advertisers remain happy, and youtube are happy, and the world is just a little bit worse for it. Because you see, often these advertisers have vested interests in not wanting certain topics from being discussed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, BOF said: It's not good actually. It's to do with a restriction on freedom of speech. Basically if you're a vlogger and you decide this week to talk about a news topic that is loosely related to religion or politics or race or anything that could in any way be deemed controversial (there is a list out there somewhere), then your video will be black-flagged by youtube and get no revenue. Net result, in the interests of your revenue you end up not making that video. Not making what may very well be valid points that result in wider discussion. You end up making bubblegum videos of little value, and the advertisers remain happy, and youtube are happy, and the world is just a little bit worse for it. Because you see, often these advertisers have vested interests in not wanting certain topics from being discussed. The platform is too powerful and decadent, ultimately these people will move to other platforms, which IMO is a good thing. I mean, when your main source of income (in terms of GDN) is ad-revenue, what do you expect? Advertisers inherently care about what their 'brand' is being associated with. Edited May 12, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 12, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just now, Dr_Pangloss said: The platform is too powerful and decadent, ultimately these people will move to other platforms, which IMO is a good thing. Youtube has the largest video audience on the internet. It's where people go to watch stuff, so it's where people go to post stuff, and it's where advertisers follow. Advertisers are now using their financial might to restrict content under the guise of brand protection. It's controlling freedom of speech by proxy. About as far from a good thing as you can get on the internet IMO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just now, BOF said: Youtube has the largest video audience on the internet. It's where people go to watch stuff, so it's where people go to post stuff, and it's where advertisers follow. Advertisers are now using their financial might to restrict content under the guise of brand protection. It's controlling freedom of speech by proxy. About as far from a good thing as you can get on the internet IMO Again, what do you expect? Youtube and by extension Google, are so reliant on ad-revenues that they have to keep advertisers happy. It's an obvious outcome. There is no BBC like remit. The internet will survive, people will go else where if they really want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 12, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just now, Dr_Pangloss said: Again, what do you expect? Youtube and by extension Google, are so reliant on ad-revenues that they have to keep advertisers happy. It's an obvious outcome. There is no BBC like remit. The internet will survive, people will go else where if they really want to. I'm not saying it's unexpected. I'm saying it's bad. I'm saying a restriction on freedom of speech doesn't 'cheer me up'. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Relax BOF I'll still watch your BOF dresses in Frozen costume videos even if you make the "controversial" content a bit more mild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just now, BOF said: I'm not saying it's unexpected. I'm saying it's bad. I'm saying a restriction on freedom of speech doesn't 'cheer me up'. That's all. I think if this gives way to people using more neutral platforms then it is a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 12, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 minute ago, villaglint said: Relax BOF I'll still watch your BOF dresses in Frozen costume videos even if you make the "controversial" content a bit more mild. I'll have to pixelate him now. They're clamping down on any 'accidental' reveals. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 12, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: I think if this gives way to people using more neutral platforms then it is a good thing You really think being pushed to the fringes by the market leader is a good thing. Where they won't be followed by the vast majority of their audience, nor more pertinently by the advertisers who've pushed them there, thus leaving them in the same financial position they've been put in now. Whatever way you try to package it, this is a bad thing. But you don't want to see that point Which is kind of scary actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, BOF said: You really think being pushed to the fringes by the market leader is a good thing. Where they won't be followed by the vast majority of their audience, nor more pertinently by the advertisers who've pushed them there, thus leaving them in the same financial position they've been put in now. Whatever way you try to package it, this is a bad thing. But you don't want to see that point Which is kind of scary actually. It will most likely lead to new platforms arising and creating competition, which can only be a good thing. It's naive that you don't expect this to happen - it's obvious when you follow the paper trail behind these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 12, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: It will most likely lead to new platforms arising and creating competition, which can only be a good thing. It's naive that you don't expect this to happen - it's obvious when you follow the paper trail behind these things. You're missing my point. This is a job to the content creators. They can only do it if they're being paid. The advertisers who have now decided not to pay on youtube are also not going to pay to be associated with that content on any other platform either. So the content doesn't get made. And that's back to my OP. Any way, I think we've done this one enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Unless you're a celeb, backed by a sponsor or work free lance for someone like buzzfeed, a make up tutorialist or a 'look how great my perfect life' vlogger then you don't make money on YT at all anymore. Its as BOF says. Its crap and a restriction on creative content by everyday people to monopolize the market so only already rich people stay rich and the poor people struggling to get 1000 followers stay poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Was watching an old episode of Jonathan Creek and Emma Noble had a brief appearance. I remember her being on Bruce's Price Is Right with a couple of other hotties. Google to the rescue (other search engines are available) and oh yes! The memories of 16yo Xela from 1995 come flooding back. Emma Noble, Emma Steadman and Kimberly Cowell. I nearly sent myself blind over that trio of leggy lovelies. Spoiler 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 On 10/05/2017 at 08:50, Wainy316 said: Did you see it on Sunday? Jupiter was clearly visible just underneath. Nah, I was on Pluto that day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 13, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted May 13, 2017 56 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: Nah, I was on Pluto that day. Can you get me some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts