Message from @Grumplebee
Discord ID: 469008797860626452
looked righteous
good too see
Good to see that those evil harnessers have been doxxed, anonymity is #toxic on the internet.
When cut off one head, two more rise.
?
I was refrencing my feeling of gloom re: the unmasking of Matt Rivitz.
You believe this doxxing was wrong?
No, I think it was the right thing to do. I just have questions if it will accomplish much is all.
It's someone I disagree with! A leftie harasser!
Yeah, but I don't think this will stop leftie harassers. It might even enbolden them. I guess we'll see.
I'm being sarcastic.
How in the fuck can you defend doxing?
Because he was doing what I like to call "lol, totes not censorship! I just don't think anybody I have the slightest political disagreement with should not be allowed to have any job with even a hint of public influence. But since I am not the government. It's not censorship."
Wait, he was going after peoples' jobs?
Quote from the article The group’s modus operandi is consistent throughout its campaigns: use social media in cooperation with other well-funded left-wing groups like Media Matters for America and Think Progress to urge their followers to contact advertisers en masse – expressing their outrage that companies dare advertise with conservatives – until the companies relent and pull their ads. Equally consistent is their goal in organizing these social media mobs: pressure corporate America to blacklist conservative audiences.
It's pretty clear to me that especially when it comes to the internet we have a very outdated view of what "sponsorship" means. Which is beneficial to advertisers (to give them greater leverage in negociating rates) and interest groups, mostly leftist interest groups. We need to divorce paying for advertizing from the concepts of sponsorship and endorsement entirely.
it doesn't matter how principled you are, the left will use your principles against you. they want us all dead for being reactionaries and resisting the glorious new utopia
Which is why it benefits us more than the left to do what I said in the above post.
Funnily enough, even people like BPS somehow get actual sponsorships.
Basically I think that esp on the internet it should be understood and accepted as a society that an advertiser pays to get their ad in front of eyeballs in their demo. That is it.
But what if an advertiser doesn't want their ads paying terrorists, communists or racists?
They will go to a platform that will give them that option.
If what is popular with 12 year-olds is someone who spews racial slurrs for two solid hours then that's the way it is. That's not a youtube problem, or an advertiser problem. It's a parent problem.
(If they don't, MSM can say "LOOK THIS COMPANY IS FUNDING NAUGHTY OPINIONS AND ACTUAL TERRORISM.".)
That's what I'm talking about in terms of divorcing "sponshorship and endorsement" from advertising. That's 1950's stuff, and for once not in a good way.
Ok, some companies might be fine with that.
But no one is entitled to advertising revenue.
Youtube is uniquely positioned to make this change, but they're leftists so they won't. Because get this. If you want kids to see ads. Youtube is the only game in town. Where are you going to take your ad money? TV? Don't make me laugh. My two year old discovered youtube by himself and has zero tolerance for commercials when he watches paw patrol at grandpa's house. So when some company says they'll pull their ads. Youtube should laugh in their face and tell them "Where you gonna go?"
That's true.
If a company chooses not to advertise on content they don't want association with, that's their choice, and you can expect advertising platforms to cater to this.
I don't think it would be hard for a company like youtube to have it in the advertising agreement a statement as simple as this "You are paying us to play your ad x number of times, in front of y kinds of people. This is all you are paying for. <company name> recognizes that this does not represent any sort of support for the ideas expressed in the ideas conveyed in the video."
And PLENTY of companies will absolutely not be OK with this.
Money left on the table.
Why?
Especially the bigger ones.
It doesn't matter why. They have a requirement, you can expect it to be catered to.
Also, see above statement that youtube is really the only game in town for some demos. At least the only one of that size.
I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't HAVE to be that way.
It's their platform, and the advertisers' money. Advertisers, especially ones that pay big bucks, don't want their brand on racist or otherwise disagreeable shit. Whether or not it HAS to be that way is irrelevant. It IS that way, and for very good reason.
Why would a company hamstring itself in the quest to get people to to buy it's product?