And those are the principles. If you make the advertisers nervous you are bad for profit and ads will be removed. If you don’t like that then don’t put your content on an ads based platform. Or do, but don’t necessarily expect to get paid.
I know that's how it works right now. But I'm clearly saying that's not how it should work - because it puts classification of acceptable morality into the hands of people who want to consider nothing more than how much shit they can sell to retards.
It's a free platform paid for by ads. Want something that works differently, use something different.
No. There aren’t. Just facts.
Bollocks. Free speech entails no right to be paid for it. Not one bit. Youtube is monetised by ads. Scare the advertisers, don't get paid. It's not complicated.
So you see no mechanism there that means people control what they say in case the rug gets pulled out from under them? No mechanism by which an unappointed moral majority determine what topics can realistically be discussed based on maximising profit for advertisers?
Nobody owes anyone an income for speech. People choose Youtube because they think they will earn more from adverts than from paid subscriptions to their content, because most consumers aren't bothered enough to actually pay. But just as you can't force consumers to pay a subscription to you, you can't force advertisers to sponsor content they think harms their brand. There's no free lunch.
hackinginquiry.org
It’s weird that people seem to think that the only behaviour that we should be allowed to find morally objectionable is that which is against the law, and preferably only after a conviction.What he has allegedly done - last I checked we still had due process in this country, and have had since the Magna Carta.
If you start stripping away rights we've had for centuries just because you don't like someone - and trust me I don't think anyone has any less time for Brand than me - we are heading down an awfully slippery slope.
Probably also worth looking into the journalist who did the bulk of the work on the story's previous record - almost driving a subject of an article to suicide and getting their paper (successfully) sued for libel.
The Mail on Sunday and Danielle Hindley: proof that nothing has changed - Hacked Off
Today at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, the Mail on Sunday formally admitted that their paper published an article featuring unfounded allegations that wrecked the life of a working single mother from Leeds. They will also apologise and pay her damages. Danielle Hindley said in a...
I made that argument?
No. Some of it isn’t in dispute. No allegedly about it. E.g: dating a schoolgirl with mental health issues and treating her like dirt. I presume advertisers aren’t keen to be associated with that.
I think the outrage at demonetisation without conviction implied it.
)
When councils decide not to take a developer's shit:
Planning enforcement notice: Mast Quay Phase II
Note: this page was originally published on 26 September 2023. The FAQs have been updated at 22 July 2024. The Royal Borough of Greenwich has taken the decision, as the local planning authority, to progress with enforcement action against the Comer Homes Group’s Mast Quay Phase II...www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk
I don't buy that. I'm having to pay the cost of multiple building inspections at certain points of my build. I have to notify at certain milestones ahead of time to allow building regs to come round and check what is built is what is specified.