Youtube is dead

>It will accelerate reviews of potentially objectionable videos

So everything that's not PC will be stroke even faster?

>more and more youtubers are coming out as 'alt-right'
>in step we see more and more moves to try and remove funding from those users and the site it self.
One hand washes the other.

Is there any decent video uploading service?
I'm getting tired of Google's bullshit.

>>59573733
uploading, plenty.
With an audience, few.

File: 1412375012617.jpg (36KB, 242x286px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 242x286px

I want google to crash so bad
sadly this won't be enough

File: WETY6.png (501KB, 853x313px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 853x313px

>>59573676
This.

>>59573619
Goliath will not fall today, keep dreaming cucks

>>59573619

faux outrage and activism to get advertisers to pull out, by the competition. The 'media'.

Companies will go to where the people are. This latest media led witch hunt will blow over. People generally understand that the advert has nothing to do with the content on the page. In the same way they understand that a coke advert on tv does not recommend an 'offensive' show that is on tv.


The media is getting desperate.

>>59573676
8/pol/ absolutely loathes the alt-right and it's controlled opposition and they're right.

File: 1475743443446.png (1MB, 1355x1807px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1355x1807px

>>59574354
I used the vague quotation thingo. Meant anything going against the narrative of political correctness.
And while you're right that the "Alt-right" is a con. It's not so much counter control as it is a bunch of money hungry faggots jumping on the band wagon casting a wide net that compleaty goes against the origins of the movement they claim to be the figurehead of.
As for the branding of what 'we' are. I'd say it's a purely centrist movement. We go by fact, truth and honesty. Not religion, feelings, or popular opinion.
Being called the X-right is a method of control. Labeling 'us' as Hill billy's, to create a stereotyped image based on years of political slander.
They will never call 'us' centrist. Because that's admitting we're correct. That we're not motivated by bigotry. That we care about the greater good. And won't let anyone bully us into compromising on fact.

My guess is that Google is deliberately provoking this by placing ads on obviously terrorist content so that their advertisers demand a response. Now Google can implement a SJW filter while claiming that their advertisers forced them to do it.

HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER?

>>59573619
if you inadvertedly aid criminals arent you held accountable regardless of your excuse? try to unwilingly purchase stolen goods, send money to isis..
sure the whole thing is a media circus, but shouldn't google be held criminally accountable for each cent sent to terrorists?

this isnt some unreasonable demand to expect them to catch every pirate and cp upload on their own, yet google is incredibly efficient in killing your upload of your baby dancing to radio and claiming its copyright infringment, but idk, if a video has millions of views and is owned $200~$300 from google, this means google itself made thousand from it or so... if its unreasonable for google to dispense $10 in half an hour cost of a mildly trained teen to check the videos before the first payment is made to an uploader... then i dont know what is reasonable.


i would wager most videos are just obscure shit with slim views, but it doesnt matter, its googles responsability


>>59574331
youre right on the money, its about the competition losing income

>understand that the advert has nothing to do with the content
thats a given, but in this case one argument trown around is about googles revenue sharing, so in a "sense" the advertisers are giving money to the uploaders... so its being painted as its some brand giving money to OJ Simpson (the sportsman suspected of murder that went free); which is not btw, its just google giving them money.

but just like in current times, companies will just fire any person mentioned by sjwmobs, will bandwagon on underdog causes, and display symbols of the weeks fad... if everyone starts doing something, they do it for free publicity or in this weeks case, fear of backlash.


>>59573766
>>59573733
youtubers, kys

>>59574473
>us
>us
>us

cancer pls leave

File: 1272144565904.gif (113KB, 600x615px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 600x615px

>>59577565
It's not got a name. Hence the use of " ' ". Jesus fuck you need reading comprehension lessons. It was literally explained in the fist sentence of that post.
Using the term "us" because it's best related to this sites political culture, and standpoints.
Unless you have a better term for it, I suggest you fuck off from the discussion unless you have some useful input on the matter you newshit meme lord.

File: Prism-001.jpg (38KB, 460x345px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 460x345px

you are not centrists

the alt-right chose its own name

your lack of basic knowledge about concrete realities like this is the reason why no will ever take you seriously

>>59573619
It turns out freedom and lack of censorship are the best adblockers in the world, who'd have thought?

>>59573619
I don't get why this is an issue. Where is this gigantic wave of "questionable content" that everyone is in arms over? Facebook has literally had crimes broadcasted over it but, its still a major ad platform regardless.

Are you guys blind?

All this outrage over bullshit all the time is FUCKING AWESOME.

Soon enough the Internet will be FREE of ads, all thanks to the outrage machine.

Rejoice!

>>59573619
Good. They really need to be put in their place. They've turned into exactly what they said they were against. Greed, hubris and cognitive dissonance.

>>59573619
old media creates political correctness to have something to stay relevant
now they use it to destroy new media

Tv is doing the same against the internet: muh add, mu privacy and muh productivity is the daily feature on tv, to bring back ratings

I am glad old media and tv are dieing. They're garbage in their current forms

>>59574836
Underated post

File: Murdoch2.jpg (414KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 2000x1000px

It's Rupert Murdoch, he owns the WSJ which went after pewdiepie as well as this paper.

He hates the internet after he bought myspace and promptly destroyed it. Now he is outright attacking any internet based media. He is blackmailing large companies to pull ads. They try to find offensive videos then record it when it plays an ad from a large corporation. Once they have a decent collection they directly contact the corporations and say they will run stories about how they are funding racist or islamophobic videos if they don't pull their advertisements from that platform.

the tech industry is a bunch of money whoring sellouts.

>>59574836
Unlikely, Murdoch wants to force internet media sites into such extreme censorship that no one will want to use the platforms, or at a minimum news and politics related videos will be impossible.

He has been attacking anything internet related for years.

>>59580739
Is there any logical reason why you would fucking say that post is underrated? Has anybody expressed any kind of dissatisfaction or criticism at all against it? Are you delusional? Are you reading replies that are nonexistant? Maybe you come from communities with voting systems, but there is literally no way that you could know what other people think of that post you just replied to here. Maybe it's psychological. Maybe it's your own post you're replying to, like a 12 year old fucktard liking his own facebook posts thinking his swelling autism is going unnoticed. Maybe your self esteem depends on you tricking yourself into thinking someone out there thinks your post is worth something. Or maybe you are just a retard, the worst kind of retard, the one who thinks he's smart, the one who thinks he's the only one to have gotten the joke, to have understood the post. Well, guess what, faggot, that post is by no definition underrated so why don't you do the world a favour and go check out what the bottom of your toilet smells like?

>>59573733
if everyone just paid for their own space in amazon ec2 this problem would be solved

>>59580155
not rejoice

how the fuck will i make extra sheckles on the side if i cant monetize my youtube bullshit anymore with stupid ads that like 2% of my audience even sees

this is an outrage, STUPID FUCKING TERRORISTS MONETIZING THEIR FUCKING VIDEOS ARE RUINING IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO JEW THE SYSTEM AND MAKE EXTRA SHECKLES ON THE SIDE DOING STUPID VIDEOS

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>59581117
Ok

Who cares it costs nothing yo host a website, maybe they should stop showing ads, gay faggots.

Get storage from google revenues, cry more financial leeching jew

>>59573654
Excellent, Google is killing itself finally.

>>59581059
wtf i love the king of britain now

File: pomf~.jpg (192KB, 684x626px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 684x626px

>>59574331
>>59575535
SO that's why the WSJ attacked Pewdiepie: To incite to see if they could fuck with the income of the most popular youtuber on the site means they could fuck with anyone else on Youtube and YoutubeTV starts without so much as a hitch

if digits youtube is kill by next year

>>59580155
Yeah, I can't wait until you have to pay for everything instead of seeing ads.

>>59580155
>Guys, we did it! Ads are gone!!
>Now we just have all start paying for YouTube Red to start viewing content :"DDDDD

THANK JESUS
I was waiting for this. The advertising bubble is going to burst, and youtube is going to die.

This is the best news ever.

>>59574473
>that we're not motivated by bigotry
That's exactly what you're motivated by. At least have the balls to own up to your hatred.

>>59573619
2017> not using adblocker..

>>59584000
>>59583922
i like how you retards think it's a bad thing that the flood of accessible mind numbing garbage will disappear, forcing the population to spend less time destroying its brains.

>>59573619
Terry have the early version of the new way of Youtube. They want money, not so called freedom. Alex on suicide watch too.

>>59583922 >>59584000
>"me viewing ads gives $5 to each *insert favourite sites* monthly"
i does not
every other website like news, newgrounds, opensubtitles, etc offering anywhere from $3 to $10 monthly to 'spare' you of ads is fucking scam / delusional / entitled

if you put $5 monthly in something like Flatrr and share between every site you visit you're already giving them more revenue than whatever barrage of advertising you might feel compeled to endure..
(except maybe if you watch 30s of videoads and click to load the ad site, for every 1m catvideo you watch, but if you're that much of a good goy, might as well give money to lots of random "charity" on your city/state/country)

the internet without ads existed before you kids were born, it would remain existing, all that would be gone would be pure noise shit like those professional youtubers, people who have something worth saying have always done it for pleasure

besides many "professional content creators" are already on pantreon, kickstart etc. people are already paying for what they feel is worth it. so it wouldnt fall back to televised proggrames only, the distributed form of user paying the creators directly will never die, its here to stay

>>59581117
underrated

Soon a new YouTube Will rise. Not vimo or daily motion, but a new original one that won't censor political views and will only promote funny original content.

>>59587397
I'll start with the logo.

>>59573619
Google is cancer, I hope they lose all their advertisers. Next we'll get rid of javascript

>>59573654
>everything that's not PC
you gamergaete fags are so insecure, not that I give a shit if your ignorant amateurly narrated and horribly argued "redpill" video gets taken down, but I doubt it will

>>59587397
you mean liveleak?

Why doesn't Youtube tell you what channels have new videos anymore on the sidebar?

>less ads on youtube
>google/youtube becoming less relevant
sounds like a win-win situation

>>59584000
Subscriptions will never make up a significant portion of youtube's revenue. If they went that direction the site would probably die. It would scare off a lot of users initially and even after they withdraw the idea people would still be looking for alternatives

>>59588244
Pretty sure they don't care about that anymore. They want to control what people watch.
They decide to conveniently glitch out and not show videos in your subscription list.
I'm pretty sure they are testing out some throttling/shadowban type thing like most other social media websites have.