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?

Yes, they are sooooo foolish.

Now we're getting into overton window territory.

or maybe we have been since the beginning.

Companies need a Grumplebee lesson in how to grow their business and avoid controversy, what they really need to do is play their ads on Moonman videos.

That is a sensible idea.

I'd be down with that. The Moomen have diplomatic immunity and are a political correctness paradox. May they remain so forever.

Oh wait

I thought moonmen were the japanese (because moonspeak)

Moonman is so very advertiser friendly, with such songs as "black lives don't matter" and "right wing death squads".

My point is not that moonman should be a viable place for ads.

It's just why it isn't that I disagree with.

Yes, if you have NO aspirations whatever about selling to more than a tiny portion of the population.

Allowing these videos to be monetised at all, by anyone, even knowingly might bring boycotts from the big payers.

If moonman is popular with the kids the businessess shouldn't care. "You made a popular thing, here is money," should be their attitude. It's the parents who should be making sure kids don't watch it.

I really don't care what businesses SHOULD be doing, or how they SHOULD behave. Youtube policy is based off of how the big payers ACTUALLY behave, in the reality in which we live.

okay, but the boycott groups don't reflect the values of most people, i think. they're ideological, left-wing lobby groups trying to shut down speech, and companies cave to them, and youtube and facebook and others practically roll out the red carpet because they are in step ideologically. it's not really because they're anticipating or reacting to market forces

they control the public space, and the execs and staff don't want anything that runs counter to their narrative in the public space

Which is what I am trying to fix.

With my idea.

Isn't BitChute doing monetisation?

i'm not sure...

i just hope the market punishes them for this behavior somehow

lol

not bitchute

I know.

It's just... markets can't really punish monopolies.

you think the government can or should do something?

It has to get really bad before you wield the trust-busting hammer.

https://twitter.com/harharstrips/status/1019431782490533897

the bee is right same for acid..... the left wants you dead... at the end of the day... its not oh companys want xyz...