"Not Advertiser Friendly"

Stroll through YouTube for awhile and you're bound to be offended by something.  I've been told I'm guilty of it myself as evidenced by the three videos YouTube has most recently deemed "Not Advertiser Friendly."  As opposed to YouTube itself which is by and large "Not Partner Friendly."

Special Offers

Personally I'd like to see a viable alternative to YouTube as they've only become increasingly Draconian since the Google acquisition. 

Do these videos offend? That depends on your point of view.  Do I advocate hate speech or present vile or disgusting content?  Not as far as I'm concerned but your mileage may vary.  I know I'm not the most attractive guy but I do keep my clothes on at least. 

Worse, if you're falsely accused of a copyright violation (I've won 2 of those BTW) YouTube will deny you compensation but has no compunction to place ads for their own benefit. 

If the content is deemed questionable how can they justify drawing revenue from it when you cannot?  It's corporatism at its worst. 

It seems the rule of the Internet is that if it's convenient it's going to cost you something.  In most cases it's free speech in others it's your privacy.  See Facebook and Twitter for other examples.

YouTube isn't leading, its following.  Their grand new idea appears to be to emulate old media with all its bias and pandering to advertisers.  Instead of pleasing advertisers perhaps advertisers need to learn to go where the eyeballs are most engaged.

The bulk of content on the service would safely fit onto a third tier cable channel that runs infomercials  between reruns of Cops all day.  Most of those fail within a couple of years so unless it's a money laundering operation it's not a viable business model.  In that light how can YouTube defend "Advertiser Friendly" denials of monetization?

Too bad, it could be so much more but YouTube chooses the path of a coward and dies 1000 deaths every day with each new upload of a "Jackass" wannabe.

See how I get myself into trouble below...

Cheers!

 

                         

Yes, you're a troll

I suppose it's the depiction of a mythical being living under rocks and bearing ill will to all passersby that's made it such a popular term in Internet circles.  In the context of a chat room or forum it's easier to hurl barbs at an opposing viewpoint with that image in mind.

We all have an opinion and the right to express it, usually.

But for all the declarations of a free and open Internet the reality is that democracy is not universally embraced.  Chat rooms and forums have "moderators" whose job it is to keep the discourse civil.  Of course it's usually a volunteer position manned by something less than a degreed psychologist.  Personal biases, immaturity and abuse of power come into play and suddenly the free exchange of ideas becomes a study in censorship. 

If you're on the wrong side of the discussion expect to earn the label of the under bridge set.  The funny  thing is that the childhood retort of "takes one to know one" comes into play here.

Unless you're the type whose only purpose in life is to be disruptive it's likely you've been unfairly branded. With chat rooms less a democracy and more a fascist state there's not much you can do but find a more like minded group.

Keep in mind that "troll" is just a word tossed about as freely as words like "friend" or "gay" which bear little resemblance to their original meanings.  There was a time, for example, when calling someone "friend" meant more than a checkbox on Facebook and "gay" had nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

Words co-opted for more of a lyrical convenience than anything else. 

Since most people throw "troll" at even the hint of a contrary opinion it's almost amusing when you realize that they're guilty of their own charge.  If an Internet forum is ruled more by fascism than free speech then attacking anyone with an opposing viewpoint to the group is in fact being trolled. In effect, practicing what they preach or denounce depending on your point of view. 

There are still those whose only purpose is to disrupt and they're closer to the original spirit of the word.  Though, there's a host of other derogatory terms with less ambiguity that are a better fit for that crowd.

 So it seems it really does "take one to know one"  Use the term too freely and you're guilty of the charge you level. 

Best to not use it at all.

Arizona, the Dry County of Free Speech

Article first published as Arizona, the Dry County of Free Speech on Technorati.

Arizona, Here we go again...      

With all the decorum of a bar fight, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was captured wagging a finger in the face of President Obama last January.  Less than 6 months later we now have the conservative state legislature presenting the Governor with a bill that has the potential to censor Internet speech. 

Proposed as an anti-bullying measure added to current stalking legislation, HB 2549 now on the Governor's desk states...

Section 13-2916, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to  read:

 Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify,  intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend;

Opponents of the bill cite a dangerous ambiguity concerning the terms "annoy or offend" which would empower the state to function as a de-facto censor for all forms of communication deemed offensive or annoying.  That includes the Internet with the penalty being a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

It should be noted that the original text of the bill cited "telephone call" as the protected medium but was struck and replaced simply with the terms "Communications" and "Electronic or Digital Device."  As with SOPA/PIPA this may be another example of government misunderstanding the effect of their legislation on the medium and the First Amendment in general.  If passed Arizona could become a virtual "dry county" for free speech.

The bill's relatively short length (1.5 pages) fails to define the scope or moderating agency responsible for enforcement which potentially leaves it's interpretation broad, ambiguous and subjective.  With such a measure signed into law, opposing political and social viewpoints could be curtailed by simply claiming they are offensive or annoying. 

Proponents cite the need for broadening the stalking provisions of the current statute to protect individuals online from bullying.

Perhaps the most amusing outcome should the Governor sign the bill into law is the ability to censor the speech of any individual or group deemed offensive or annoying.  That includes the Governor herself as her wagging finger could be deemed offensive.