• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

A questionable video apparently appeared on the Kids section of Youtube

Y2kTheNewOldies

Y2kTheNewOldies

http://www.click2houston.com/consumer/trolls-trick-kids-into-watching-disturbing-videos


Umm this allegation of Doc McStuffins if true is questionable too. This is on top of other allegations Youtube was also facing that got advertisers to make boycott threats over advertising next to Pizzagate videos with Alex Jones.

I say this is really a case of Youtube dealing with expanding audiences and addressing new issues that go with that. The platform has evolved from its origins in dealing with its original demos the surfers and skateboarding audience back in 2006 to a wider demos in 2017. This is a case where Youtube has redefined TV and controversies that went with the platform over the years.
 
Dominating the tech news cycle over the last 10 days has been the mass exodus of many of the world’s biggest brands from Google’s YouTube. The stampede was sparked by a London Times article on February 9th, which stated that ads placed by the UK government were being displayed on YouTube alongside hateful content from white nationalists and terrorists like ISIS.

Initially, a flurry of UK-based companies such as Lloyds, HSBC, The Guardian, and The BBC announced they were suspending ads on YouTube. Then over the next few days, L’Oreal, Audi, and McDonalds UK followed suit. Despite Google’s public response that they would rapidly work to fix the problem, by the end of last week PepsiCo, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, AT&T, Johnson & Johnson, and ride-service firm Lyft had pulled out as well. The resulting hit to parent company Alphabet’s stock erased $26 billion in market value overnight.

This scandal is a big deal, and it is bringing mainstream awareness to one of the largest problems intrinsic to programmatic digital advertising: brand safety. Programmatic advertising enables advertisers to target users based on individual profile data and serve ads to them regardless of where they are on the internet. This automated process serves billions of ad impressions every day with no human input, allowing advertisers to cheaply and efficiently reach audiences at scale. Such massive scale comes with a cost: the algorithms simply cannot always distinguish which content is toxic and should be avoided.


I view the YouTube brand boycott as a major “growing pain” in the rapid evolution of the digital advertising industry. It’s not surprising to me that this happened the same year digital ad spend is projected to exceed television for the first time. The explosive growth of YouTube as an advertising platform is stunning. It is estimated that YouTube ad revenue went from $4 billion in 2013 to $11 billion in 2016. Historically, brands were more concerned with lowest cost and maximizing reach in their programmatic campaigns. The desire to get the cheapest ad placement has gotten advertisers into unsavory places. The best quality placements are not the cheapest. In addition, more comprehensive use of blacklists and whitelists will cause CPMs to rise. Going forward, I believe, many brands will pay a premium for a higher level of brand safety. In my opinion, most of the brands boycotting YouTube will return: for online video, it’s simply the best game in town. When they do come back, no doubt it will be with a much more comprehensive strategy in place to protect their brand.
Click to expand...

Here is an Update by Forbes on the Youtube boycott by advertisers.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/groupt...-whos-on-your-youtube-blacklist/#7cf83d8a3610

https://www.forbes.com/sites/groupt...hos-on-your-youtube-blacklist/2/#2faad0e040e1
 
http://mashable.com/2017/04/03/youtube-advertiser-h3h3-wsj-backlash/#vGSy8GI89aqT

Now you have certain Youtube shows doing rants against the Wall Street Journal over allegations that lead to the advertiser boycott.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/you...g-wall-street-journal-of-falsifying-evidence/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/04/fake-news-blows-up-in-trolls-faces.html

Damn the Fallout with Youtube and the Boycott keeps getting crazier here and this time it goes beyond PewDiePie, Pizzagate and Infowars.


TRUTH
A YouTube Star, Reddit Detectives and the Alt-Right Call Out a Fake News Story. Turns Out It Was Real.
A YouTube star scored a viral hit with a video claiming The Wall Street Journal had faked a story about YouTube. The allegation raced round the world, but it wasn’t true.
Ben Collins
BEN COLLINS

04.04.17 2:35 AM ET
It was a startling claim from a YouTube star with 3 million subscribers and 40 million viewers in the last month: “Evidence that WSJ used FAKE screenshots.”
That was the title on Ethan Klein’s H3H3Productions YouTube video last week. The video itself didn’t pull any punches, either. In it, Klein claims The Wall Street Journal’s Jack Nicas fabricated screenshots that showed YouTube’s algorithm failing to block big-money advertisers from appearing before racist videos.
“Seems like some simple fact checks could’ve gone onto it before you completely demonized and destroyed a platform and the income of all their users,” Klein says. “Send this video to Wall Street Journal. Send this video to YouTube. Send this to other news organizations and brands. This is the smoking gun.”
But Klein’s “smoking gun” that Nicas fabricated screenshots—a separate screenshot from an uploader of one of the racist videos showing the user hadn’t made any money on the video, titled “Chief Keef dancing to Alabama N---er,” for months—wound up to be entirely incorrect. Ads had been running on the video all along, even from sponsors like Coca-Cola.
All Klein had to do was send the video to YouTube and ask if the video was being monetized.
Sources familiar with YouTube’s ad systems at the company confirmed to The Daily Beast that ads did, in fact, run on the video. So did several users who later debunked the video and forced Klein to pull it down on Sunday.
Click to expand...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom