| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| WSJ VS. YOUTUBE MEGATHREAD | 4/30/2017 | AppNexus and the WSJ connection |
| << < (21/23) > >> |
| torin²:
--- Quote from: Master Matthew² on April 25, 2017, 09:20:48 PM ---This, This times ten, along with all the TV News Medias. TV is Dying, and they might as well loving go too. Netflix and Youtube and the internet will replace the archaic setting that is Television. TV restricts you to watching on THEIR terms and THEIR channels and THEIR content at THEIR times. The internet has either very little or no restrictions on par to the TV's restrictive ability. They may try to control it, they may try to hold back this mighty beast, but the internet is no mere system, it is a far reaching, expansive network, without any restrictions or insanity that TV has made. The People are in control on The Internet. Keep an eye out, Germany is already trying to make pepple get "licenses" to make youtube videos. --- End quote --- get the forget off /pol/ |
| PhantOS:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on April 25, 2017, 09:47:20 PM ---what I want to know is why is matt addressing a month-old post when he could be ranting against someone for forcing h3h3 to drastically change their business model --- End quote --- nobody forced h3h3 to change their business model. a news outlet reported their opinion on an issue and multiple companies made their own decision on how to spend their own money. if you want to punish news for doing exactly what it's supposed to do, go join the fascist league and spread the word about how media needs to be censored. people like these dudes or Humble Water Filter Merchant and PJW spread their own right/wrong/offensive/decisive opinions because they live in the united states and are entitled to do so. coca cola and other companies decided to use their freedom to read these articles and used that same freedom to make a business decision in order to avoid getting hurt by consumers due to the articles. now these youtubers are using their free will to search for an alternative that will generate ad revenue. life goes on whose fault is it- WSJ for posting news articles on an issue? the ad companies for looking out for their best interest? youtube for forcing to cut revenue on videos due to a loss of money? the consumers who show dissatisfaction in the videos being advertised on? it doesn't matter who you choose, their entirely within their rights to do what they did. |
| NotBomberguy:
--- Quote from: Master Matthew² on April 25, 2017, 09:20:48 PM ---This, This times ten, along with all the TV News Medias. TV is Dying, and they might as well loving go too. Netflix and Youtube and the internet will replace the archaic setting that is Television. TV restricts you to watching on THEIR terms and THEIR channels and THEIR content at THEIR times. The internet has either very little or no restrictions on par to the TV's restrictive ability. They may try to control it, they may try to hold back this mighty beast, but the internet is no mere system, it is a far reaching, expansive network, without any restrictions or insanity that TV has made. The People are in control on The Internet. Keep an eye out, Germany is already trying to make pepple get "licenses" to make youtube videos. --- End quote --- I don't speak italian |
| Tactical Nuke:
--- Quote from: PhantOS on April 25, 2017, 09:51:46 PM ---nobody forced h3h3 to change their business model. a news outlet reported their opinion on an issue and multiple companies made their own decision on how to spend their own money. if you want to punish news for doing exactly what it's supposed to do, go join the fascist league and spread the word about how media needs to be censored. --- End quote --- the first article they posted on PewDiePie was not "opinion" as much as it was slander, and it's very obvious they only posted this article for financial gain in addition to ideological motivations there's also suggestions that they might have faked the photographic evidence that they provided (no way of proving that or disproving it though) --- Quote from: PhantOS on April 25, 2017, 09:51:46 PM ---people like these dudes or Humble Water Filter Merchant and PJW spread their own right/wrong/offensive/decisive opinions because they live in the united states and are entitled to do so. coca cola and other companies decided to use their freedom to read these articles and used that same freedom to make a business decision in order to avoid getting hurt by consumers due to the articles. now these youtubers are using their free will to search for an alternative that will generate ad revenue. life goes on --- End quote --- the articles targetted PewDiePie and those like him not really the type of people that warrant this boycott --- Quote from: PhantOS on April 25, 2017, 09:51:46 PM ---whose fault is it- WSJ for posting news articles on an issue? the ad companies for looking out for their best interest? youtube for forcing to cut revenue on videos due to a loss of money? the consumers who show dissatisfaction in the videos being advertised on? it doesn't matter who you choose, their entirely within their rights to do what they did. --- End quote --- WSJ definitely these channels and this system has existed for years without a hitch, and then WSJ suddenly decides to write articles calling popular content creators like PewDiePie and JonTron "national socialists" and suggesting that a majority of ads are showing up on tribal videos, even though that's almost systematically impossible on YouTube for blatantly tribal videos to receive AdSense, even before the update |
| PhantOS:
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 |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |