I'm pretty sure that if YT made a whitelist that the money made from those content creators could pay at least one employee to manually review videos. Also they could hold the money earned by contested videos and then release it upon a favorable review.
-
-
Replying to @FaerieJoker @JenLuvsReviews and
You are missing the point though. 'Whitelisting' and then reviewing later isn’t what the advertisers want. They don’t want their ads anywhere near anything that might have blow back for them. Manual reviews would have to happen BEFORE they go live
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimonWakefield @FaerieJoker and
I’m not missing the point. If a creator is falsely flagged 99% of the time, especially a huge creator that has been on the platform since the beginning, screwing them over for 50-80% of their revenue in the 1% chance that something isn’t ad friendly is f’d up. Period.
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JenLuvsReviews @FaerieJoker and
It’s basically all their revenue he as all that will be left are advertisers who pay much less and are more sketchy as they don’t care what type of content they are attached to
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimonWakefield @JenLuvsReviews and
Your missing the point. The system is broken and it needs to change. If this happened with TV it would be a much bigger deal. TV has clear contracts so maybe that's the answer? A tiered partnership? Idk I'm not a content creator, just rational thinking person.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaerieJoker @JenLuvsReviews and
TV is different. Advertisers on TV pay top dollar to target specific content, content that has to abide by very specific guidelines. YT not only has much more freedom on what can be put on it but it works on a system where advertisers buy mass impressions that target the viewer..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimonWakefield @FaerieJoker and
Not the content. If an advertiser is happy to be associated with a creator no matter the subject matter they can and do approach that channel outside of YT's system and then it’s more like the TV system
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimonWakefield @JenLuvsReviews and
Whether you think it's real or fake, good or bad, Phil's show is a news show. If an advertiser pulled their funding during a show for that show it wouldn't fly. It's not the exact same, its similar.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaerieJoker @SimonWakefield and
You're still missing the point. YT has a partnership program. They bait content creators with adrevinue then pull it after YT gets the content. That's a con game. The full situation is more complex but for content creators it amounts to the same thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaerieJoker @JenLuvsReviews and
The partnership program doesn’t grant you the right to have advertisers pay you for content that makes them look bad. I run a number of websites & have done for 20 years and they have been accepted into Adsense & other ad networks but that doesn’t mean I’m entitled to have ads..
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
On all pages no matter the content. The networks can and do remove ads on pages where content is identified as potentially unsuitable for advertisers because the advertisers don't want associated with problematic content. You either have to adjust content so it’s never a....
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.