Author Topic: WSJ VS. YOUTUBE MEGATHREAD | 4/30/2017 | AppNexus and the WSJ connection  (Read 13613 times)

I still don't understand. Every major news article utilizes slander, targets individuals for their own personal or ideological gain. That's how they earn money. I agree that targeting individuals like pewdiepie is scummy and shouldn't be done, but i'm kind of puzzled why you aren't so vocal on calling out websites like Fox, Breitbart, CNN, cnn, Buzzfeed, and other super popular news outlets that use this tactic all the time.

They're so powerful that they can essentially swing the results of the election with some well placed articles here and there. This kind of bullstuff is common-practice but according to these people it's some kind of 'leftist scheme' to censor the media, even though you openly advocate in the reporters being laid off or fired simply for doing their job. It just seems to me that you're super upset that a left-leaning outlet does it, but nearly unfazed when right-leaning outlets do the same thing

WSJ led the charge here, with other outlets picking up. CNN and other sites aren't relevant here because they aren't posting articles about this debacle (as far as I'm aware).

Not to mention, it's extremely weird that you're telling me that I don't rail on CNN for being slanderous enough yet if I can remember you've responded to me before for calling CNN fake news, saying that no, it was generally a reliable source. I don't know when this was, so don't quote me on that. The point is that I've made my opinion on CNN clear in the past, but they're not reporting on this so I don't loving care about them right now.

I'm not upset that it's left-leaning, I'm upset that a slanderous article or two put several people's livelihoods at risk just to make a quick buck. They literally took a joke Pewds made about the media taking his jokes out of context and they took it out of context. These are the people making all this happen.

For the record, they are left-leaning, yes, but I'd have the same problem if a right-leaning news source did it for purely ideological reasons as well. That's why I was upset when that conservative website (I can't remember the name) ousted Milo Yiannopoulos as a "child enthusiast".

Then you have the idiots here saying its a good thing that youtubers arent getting paid because they dont want youtubets to do it for the money
and that youtube takes no effort and to get a normal job.

lol @ defending wsj

keep denying facts 👌

to those saying tv isn't dying:
http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/television-sets-dying-accenture-study.html
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/cord-cutters-why-millennials-are-saying-goodbye-to-cable-tv/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/03/25/more-millennials-than-ever-are-cutting-the-cord/99380234/
there is also an article i couldn't find of a study detailing that the majority of people they surveyed around and over the age of 50 still watched tv daily, but those surveyed just getting out of college, buying homes, apartments - essentially becoming adults - were still not buying cable packages.

YouTube is not replacing TV. Especially now with advertisers dropping their ads from YouTube.
YouTube won't replace TV, Netflix will, Hulu will...
YouTube is YouTube.

Netflix is TV without the Cable Box and bullstuff subscriptions.
Hulu is  the TV without the  Cable Box and bullstuff subscriptions, but there are ads...



is this true

makes sense

Rupert Murdoch is the head of News Corp, which is basically a monopoly on news and AppNexus is a professional advertising software made for top companies
though I don't know the connection

EDIT: yeah this guy's right

Quote from: Sources
http://newscorp.com/

http://www.businessinsider.com/appnexus-raises-31-million-from-news-corp-yahoo-japan-previous-investors-2016-9

https://www.appnexus.com/en

interestingly enough AppNexus also takes money from Yahoo
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 01:08:08 AM by Tactical Nuke »

ok now it makes more sense. if they're owned by a competitor they probably get payed to put slander on YT. i think that now changes the game since there's a motive

if we kill rupert murdoch, all the other vampires die, too, right?