Google takes action on Climate Change Hoaxsters 26

[JoshPlumSE]

For what it's worth, I believe the way this works is that the advertisements still appear. It's just that Google receives all the revenue from those ads. And, the content provider (whose video has been demonetized) gets no revenue from the video.

Google has some financial incentive to do this as often as possible.

I've seen more than a couple content providers complain about Google policies like this (though not this specific one). Google will flag a video and demonetize it for some obscure "violation" of policy immediately after the video goes up. The content creator appeals, but during the appeal process (when the new video is receiving the most hits) they are not making any money off of it. The appeal is granted and the video is re-monetized. But, the creator doesn't receive any of revenue that Google received during the "suspension" period.

 

[rb1957]

geeze, if that's the case it's sicker than I thought. "We're going to keep making money, in fact more money, until you grow tired (and hungry) and comply."

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[SnTMan]

I was under the impression that is how de-monetizing worked. If so, entirely evil.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

FB and google's business model is de-monetizing the planet, one user and one ad at a time.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

How would that work? G posts their adds for free?

Posting unpaid climate deniers materials would not satisfy their customer's complaints. It actually works the other way 'round. G posts their customer's adverts on websites that are not their own and pays the websites for clicks on the adverts they have posted there.

The customers objected to their adverts appearing via G on climate deniers Web pages, blogs, etc. G apparently will not post anything on those pages, or not pay the web page, if they do. In that case there is no advantage for the Web site owners to let G use that space for free, hence it could be assumed the Web site owners would seek other sources of revenue to extract from that space, ask for donations, sell MAGA hats, fake vaccination cards, or C19 funerals and burial plots, etc.

 

[rb1957]

advertisers pay Google, (does Google should which ads go where ?) Google "monetizes" the feed, and pockets a portion of the ad fee.

when Google "demonetizes", they keep all the ad fee.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

The customers objected to their adverts appearing via G on climate deniers Web pages, blogs, etc. G apparently will not post anything on those pages, or not pay the web page, if they do. In that case there is no advantage for the Web site owners to let G use that space for free, hence it could be assumed the Web site owners would seek other sources of revenue to extract from that space, ask for donations, sell MAGA hats, fake vaccination cards, or C19 funerals and burial plots, etc.

I should be more clear.... It gets confusing when we talk about Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and their various policies for dealing with "misinformation".

When I was talking about videos getting demonetized, I was specifically talking about YouTube, not Google. YouTube is owned by Google / Alphabet, but my post may not be 100% the same as the policy discussed in the opening post of this thread. Those YouTube videos are the ones where the advertisements are part of YouTube's general function. YouTube (as far as I understand it) still makes money off them even when they've been demonetized.

Now, this is different from the videos being removed completely (for content violations like nudity or porn or such). It's also different from biasing their search engine to reduce traffic to said videos or content providers. Which many conservative groups allege is done in a politically biased way to reduce the reach of their content. But, which (if true) does not directly relate to my previous post.

This YouTube policy is also different than Facebook's policy of slapping a "potentially false o misleading information" flag on videos or posts that creates a longer "click through" process before you can see the content. This actually reduces the views of the content.

 

[1503-44]

Still needs more explaining as to how you think that could work. You didn't really explain how you think it works at all. You simply say that you "understand that Google makes money off them even when they've been demonetized." How is it possible? Who's paying G for not showing their adverts? That's how they do it???

A video posted to YouTube makes no money for anybody by itself. G will run paying customer's adverts during "commercial breaks", either by interrupting a long playing video, or between shorter videos. The paying customer pays G every time G runs their advert. G runs the advert in the stream of the many videos from all sources that draws people to watch YouTube, and those people see the paying customer's advert. Customer gets his publicity, G made money because the customer paid G to run that advert.

A climate denier posts a video on G. The paying customer told G not to run their add next to that climate denier's video stream. G does not collect anything from that video stream because G did not run the paying customer's advert next to it. Nobody makes any money. Not going to happen unless G wants to run the climate denier's video as a public service. I doubt that's the current plan.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Still needs more explaining as to how you think that could work. You didn't really explain how you think it works at all. You simply say that you "understand that Google makes money off them even when they've been demonetized." How is it possible? Who's paying G for not showing their adverts? That's how they do it???

I was talking about YouTube specifically and the ads that they show. These are somewhat automated and appear every few minutes whether or not the person who posted the content to YouTube makes money off of them. The people with channels that have a lot of view tend to make a lot of money off of these advertisements.

This article seems to be addressing two issues.
a) This YouTube demonetization issue as I described it.
b) Advertisers that use Googles ad services to promote videos or content that is "objectionable" because it amounts to a denial of climate change or such. Many web pages that rely on google ad services and such, don't want these types of videos appear on their pages.

Two separate issues as I understand it.

Granted, I could be wrong.

 

[rb1957]

do we think this censorship is appropriate ?

1) Are advertisers saying to Google (or YT) "don't show our material on this channel/video" ?

2) Or is Google saying "we listen to the user population and determine (somehow) that they don't want this, so we'll act on their directions" ?

3) Or is Google saying "We, Google/YT, don't think you should see this."

I suspect it is 3) loosely veiled by 2).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

Well you lost me. This thread disappeared down the rabbit hole quite rapidly.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

You can be sure of one thing. However you paint this, G makes more money if they demonitize climate deniers.

 

[LionelHutz]

@rb1957 I would also suspect it's 3 being justified by claiming its 2. But then FB and YT tend to allow or disallow a lot by using the "for the greater good" excuse except they leave off "of ourselves" or "based on our owners beliefs".

 

[JoshPlumSE]

do we think this censorship is appropriate ?

Well, there are true nuances here.

YouTube Demonetization:
This is NOT censorship. It may be discrimination based on political beliefs. They're just saying that you cannot profit off of certain types of videos on their site. Videos that may not comply to their community policies. Or, videos that have been flagged as containing "misleading information". The only problems I have with this are ethical ones related to YouTube collecting money on these videos and refusing to give this to the content creator even if their appeal is granted.

YouTube Video Removal:
YouTube will remove some videos completely and not allow them to appear on their site. My belief is that this does NOT apply to this type of climate videos. But, I'm not sure.

YouTube Video Suppression:
There are all kinds of ways these social media sites can "suppress" content that they don't like. Much of it is hidden behind algorithms that make the videos appear more prominently or less prominently in searches or such.

I don't know if YouTube does the "flagged" videos thing that Facebook does. Where the image is blurred, but the title of the video is not. Then you click on it and you have to get past some warnings about misleading information in order to see it. I don't have too much of a problem with this. It fulfills their responsibility to "fact check", but isn't outright censorship. It tends to be a bit clumsy because many times their "fact checks" aren't really performed.... rather they are flagging them based on "twitter mob" type responses and key words in the video or such. But, it is better than full censorship.

 

[Landon Bell]

Good idea.

 

If Eng-tips had ads and games then this thread would be hard to distinguish from a typical FB page.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[enginesrus]

Right on, forced beliefs, similar to religion, and not science. Just like saying you have to believe the earth is flat or else.
I don't think it is so much denying climate change, but the real cause of it is the issue.

 

[IRstuff]

And what is the real cause for the earth being flat?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JoshPlumSE]

IRstuff -

I think enginesrus means the real cause of the skepticism around "climate change" is the "forced beliefs" that are being thrust on people. There are some (Al Gore, for example) who treat this as a religion. Where you are either a saved believer who follows the dogma based mostly on faith, or you are a heathen if you question any aspect of it.

 

[IRstuff]

Then the analogy was poor, hence my jab; the earth is NOT flat, and deniers of a round earth come up with one excuse after another to "refute" actual evidence, which is exactly what climate change deniers have been doing. People believe all sorts of nonsense, just like the guys that think that pi is not irrational, and it's simply a matter of making more accurate measurements to prove otherwise.

Whether or not climate change has other mechanisms that we can't control is moot; the question still remains whether carbon dioxide emissions is making the situation worse, and that is something we can control.

The notion that this is some sort of "forced belief" system is a dodge; we're forced to learn that 1+1=2, and that strength of materials is real, and that transistors work a certain way; I haven't seen many engineers carping about being forced to "believe" that steel being stronger than wood and claiming that it's otherwise.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm