next »

[Zizka]

I'm not talking about any specific instance. There are tons of videos that have been demonetized that are vile and I would never defend. I'm asking you to take a broader view and look at it from a systemic stand point.

That's the thing though, the specific instance in this case is youtube. I think there are certain aspects to the medium which are specific to youtube. I find that going for an overgeneralized systemic analysis in this case doesn't help the purpose of understanding the outrage of youtube's recent enforcement of the more recent elements of their TOS.

   

[Dacke]

The "no specific instance" comment was a reply to Alessio's comment about a specific suicide video maybe not being that good.

But I am talking about youtube and the analysis is fully applicable. Just like the video in your OP is fully applicable to the creator-advertiser relation, whether the context is youtube or some other platform.

I'm not really interested in specific outrage of that-or-the-other youtube star, because I doubt most of them have a good critical analysis of the forces in play. Which is the same perspective taken by the video in your OP. Many of them will have problems and cry out because of it, but how do we actually best understand what is going on under the surface?

I'm taking the same basic approach to the problem as the OP video: asking what forces are at play and what are the actual consequences will be. Except that his answer is "suck it up" while mine is to take a deeper look at the assumptions involved and what the implications are on culture production as a whole under this model. The OP video and me basically agree on what the consequences are, btw, just that I think that it's a problem worth addressing and that "suck it up" is an incredibly pointless answer.

[Zizka]

But I am talking about youtube and the analysis is fully applicable. Just like the video in your OP is fully applicable to the creator-advertiser relation, whether the context is youtube or some other platform.

That's where I disagree with you. Youtube isn't "any" platform. It therefore requires to be analyzed by taking its unique traits into consideration. To put it in the same basket as any other media isn't the most accurate way to analyze the situation. I guess we'll just disagree on this one.

Many of them will have problems and cry out because of it, but how do we actually best understand what is going on under the surface?

I think most people do. As in any power struggle, parties wan't to illustrate their issue in a way which appeals to morality as I've mentioned before. This isn't an overly complicated issue. It's investors wanting to have some freedom of choice on their investment. It's a power struggle between those who invest and those who serve the investors. Those who serve the investors, the youtubers, are resisting an intrusion on their livelihood. They subsequently use freedom of speech, censorship and other wide-appeal ideals to justify their outrage and gain lobbying power from their fans in order to tip the scale in their favor regarding the investors.

The very core of it is pretty simple to me:

-Investors want to make more money
-Youtubers want to make more money

The problem is that they have conflicting interest which leads to a power struggle. Youtubers will either manipulate public opinion sufficiently and force youtube to review it's TOS (very unlikely) or they will need to adapt to the (justified) interests of the investors.

The most reasonable position would be for the investor to get what he wants from the provider. Investors want to pay for a certain service and youtubers are frustrated because what they want isn't the kind of content that they want to provide and complain about it. They can either accept to provide the service they are being paid for or refuse and make videos which they enjoy doing but won't be paid for. Those who can adapt to the new rules will likely manage to tackle both at the same time and survive while those refusing to evolve will fall short and vanish.

[Dacke]

I don't really disagree with anything in that description of the situation.

I'm simply describing kind of results that are know to fall out of that struggle/interaction. What effects we, as a matter-of-fact, know that an increase in advertiser influence has on culture output. It's pretty basic stuff.

The only difference between us seems to be that you're saying "that's just how the world works", while I'm saying "that's how the world works and here are some big-picture problems with that".

[Alessio]

I honestly don't see any big problem with this anyway. At the end of the day, "family-friendly" means a broader audience. And a broader audience means more income. The fact, for me, that my content can be qualified as family-friendly enough, can be a good opportunity to make known without being obiged to pay attention to some self-entitled Youtube users who can't wait to make money off my work mixing it with their foul, stupid and educationally harmful contents.

If you swear and belch as a form of entertainment (unless you're this fictional guy), i don't think you're going to get a big audience. It has always worked in this way and i'm actually surprised why the rotten youtubers didn't get crack down in the first place. They would throw you rotten tomatoes if you did that form of entertainment some years ago (at least i think so).

Sorry for this but i also think monetizing on delicate topics is, well, a little indelicate. Feel free to do that with your own media, though. Therefore, if you want to make money with Youtube, you'll have to comply with these policies, if you don't, well you won't make money with Youtube. You can't force a platform like Youtube to comply with your own rules because that's just arrogance in the first place. I mean, if i don't like discos (well, i hate discos and that kind of lifestyle) i just can't force them to close down.

The only thing i may be wondering is how Youtube would deal with cartoon violence like Dragon Ball's one or with stuff like 300. How will big movie studios advertise on their gory entertainment in Youtube trailers? Would they get a special persmisson? (although they actually can make it without Youtube, to be honest, but still...)

[Torchkas]

yeah, but a broader audience also means no focus.





youtube already fucked animation like this, where ad revenue would be based on the length of a video. this is not a very new thing, just never has it been this visible.

[Dacke]

I just want to give some context and remind people that YT is much bigger than "YT-personalities". I watch a lot of political analysis, news related commentary, feminist critical analysis, discussions about race, personal stories about abuse and harassment etc. All of which is discouraged content under an "advertiser friendly" model, even though creating it is much more worthwhile than bland fluff.

[Alessio]

Don't see the problem with "no focus": i just want to create a game i would play if i was the consumer and see what happens next. When i make a videogame i just don't really care about putting political propaganda. It's just some toxic individuals in the Web that really renders this activity just soulcrushing with politics and elitism.

And Jim Sterling is a generally unlikeable person. People like him don't help the videogame industry gain a better reputation. I'd really like it if he just stopped being terrible to people and went away.

[Torchkas]

you're right, people who think there's no issue with corporately ruled structure within media, however, help make the videogame industry a much better place!!!

[gimymblert]

PATREON

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

And Jim Sterling is a generally unlikeable person. People like him don't help the videogame industry gain a better reputation. I'd really like it if he just stopped being terrible to people and went away.

Can you explain how he doesn't help the videogame industry in your opinion?
Because from my point of view , he's helping the videogame industry gain a better reputation. How is he being terrible to people?
I think his game criticism pretty legit and he's giving some good advices in his greenlight videos.


(it seems that Patreon is what keeps his channel alive)

[Alessio]

He's very controversial and opinionated and seems to be very into extreme social justice (eew) and in something like the video game industry this shouldn't happen at all. His posting style doesn't like the one from a professional journalist and also gets into useless arguments. The Gamer Gate still confuses me and, thankfully, will never fully understand what's up with that thing (for me, women and men have natively the same mental capability to be videogame developers). To not mention when he went to attack TenNapel (Earthworm Jim) because he had the wrong opinion that didn't match with the mob's one. TenNapel was tens of times better than the people who needlessly attacked and boycotted him for a pettiness that didn't have anything to do with videogames.
Really, keeping the videogame topic OUT of social justice is a MUST if you want a sane and peaceful environment. That's why i think he doesn't help the videogame industry keep a good reputation. Videogames are about videogames, not about social commentary.

Unfortunately, some people take negativity for breakfast, every morning. Thankfully i'm not one of these and if i ever do a successful game i will never get into controversy for dinner.

Though this topic would deserve its own thread so i'll stop here before derailing the thread.

[gimymblert]

[...] seems to be very into extreme social justice (eew)[...]
Really, keeping the videogame topic OUT of social justice is a MUST if you want a sane and peaceful environment. That's why i think he doesn't help the videogame industry keep a good reputation. Videogames are about videogames, not about social commentary.[...]

That's a parody right? 

[Zizka]

Gonna have to disagree about Sterling. He does a good job busting out the garbage on steam.

[Dacke]

[...] seems to be very into extreme social justice (eew)[...]
Really, keeping the videogame topic OUT of social justice is a MUST if you want a sane and peaceful environment. That's why i think he doesn't help the videogame industry keep a good reputation. Videogames are about videogames, not about social commentary.[...]

 

[s0]

hahahahaha

[Alessio]

Instead of getting sarcastic replies can someone explain why my opinion is wrong instead? That's why i've written about being peaceful to each other. I don't seem i happen to have written anything out of place.

[gimymblert]

Social justice issue aren't put somewhere by some sjw people, they are abuse happening that get call out, I mean literal abuse. When meritocracy is broken, when people are attacked for just being a certain appearance that change nothing to their merit, you don't have a sane and peaceful environment. Rooting out the bully is not to be mocked using some stupid term. The visible part of that (also the smaller) is to encourage respectfully treatment everywhere, ie representation, to help remind that without respect reputation suffer. It's worth reminding that the reason video game suffer from reputation is precisely because it is seen as a juvenile pas time for horny post teen peoples that didn't grew up enough to get a real adult. Surprisingly the part of social justice that deal with representation is correcting that big time.

[Mittens]

I like that youtube is incentivising entertainment which is more than just line-crossing click bait, constant swearing and overreacting. I don't like that crap, it's is so excessively popular on YT and I think it's totally fine to challenge youtubers to make quality content without their dumb cheap tricks for easy clicks.

[Torchkas]

Really, keeping the videogame topic OUT of social justice is a MUST if you want a sane and peaceful environment. That's why i think he doesn't help the videogame industry keep a good reputation. Videogames are about videogames, not about social commentary.

If you want video games to never have sociopolitical commentary, you'll never have a mature medium. There really is no argument for keeping social justice seperated from video games aside from "I don't like it."