this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
154 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1454 readers
73 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Should we stop supporting them with our eyes for taking sponsorships from shady companies?

Edit: I took my first step and unsubscribed from the channel and I will continue to withhold my viewership to those that don’t take better care of the viewers.

Likely doesn’t matter, but I’m on a roll of not giving my money to companies that are immoral so why not do the same with my eyes.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee 80 points 5 months ago

A channel absolutely should be held accountable for the sponsors they accept. Advertisements from YouTube are mostly outside channel owners control, but sponsors are not.

I don't support channels with unethical sponsors. It can be tough sometimes.

[–] blaine@lemmy.ml 46 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Veritasium is YouTube propaganda. It's well documented - Derek takes sponsor money and gets people killed in the process. I blocked Derek on all platforms the day Tom put this documentary video out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Veratasium had some similar issue a few years ago too, didn't he?

I recall Tom Nichols making a video on them and also perhaps an incorrect video about electricity so probably.

[–] Snowcano@startrek.website 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m out of the loop, what did Better Help do?

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Am I just old, even by internet standards? Because we've been here before. Better Help was blasted on the internet several years ago for their shady business practices. Several major YouTubers published "make good" videos about it, because of how bad the service was. Better Help was giving YouTubers and podcasters a shitload of money to promote their product, and in their terms they explicitly stated that they did not verify the credentials of their "therapists" and that it was on you to do that.

[–] bjornsno@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I feel like this wasn't even that long ago? I was quite surprised when my content suddenly started being sponsored by them again.

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I had that same reaction. It actually happened around 2018 (where does the time go?)

https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/4/17932862/betterhelp-app-youtube-sponsorship-controversy-explained

We've definitely been here before. One of the interesting things about this article is that a lot of the videos they embedded are gone now.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 18 points 5 months ago

Don't let anybody tell you you can't consume or not consume whatever content you feel like. Theres an uptick in this weird attitude of "you're an asshole/fascist/whatever trying to cancel everyone" if you decide to stop watching someone or buying a product. Its bullshit, you don't owe anybody jack.

You're one person. Either you bailing won't matter, or a bunch of people bail and they learn their lesson. Either way you don't have to put up with a damn thing you don't want to. 🀷

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wow, those comments are a dumpster fire.

Not sure what Derek 's best response might be. I'm thinking that this video will likely be taken down and replaced by one without a sponsor.

Right. You have to scroll quite a way to see something other than him being called out.

[–] Kwakigra 13 points 5 months ago

Veritasium endorsed a known racketeer and as a consequence some portion of their audience is now going to be defrauded in an economy where there's not a lot of room for that especially among those in need of therapy. Watching Veritasium videos causes the channel to have greater exposure, increasing the risk to the general population if engaged with by anyone. Therefore, engaging with this channel in any way is harmful to others.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm curious, what would happen if I, as a creator, had been contacted by a sponsor and then if the sponsor was shady, decided to not only say no to the contract, but also rag on them in the video where the sponsor would have been shilled?

[–] Pudutr0n@feddit.cl 5 points 5 months ago

Tim Dillon used to do that all the time.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago

I do that kind of thing, yes. Although I usually find it so distasteful, that I lose interest in watching other videos anyways.

But yeah, especially when it's a channel making educational content, there's a chance that some viewers take the sponsored section as general educational content (no matter, whether that's because they're gullible, young or did not pay attention when the sponsor segway happened).

There's also various tech channels which recommend products that are objectively worse than the alternatives, or even exert malware-like behaviour. Those also immediately lose any and all respect from me.

Obviously, if it was a genuinely good product, it wouldn't need the sponsorship deal for people to make videos about it. So, I do understand the struggle.
But everyone wanting to make a living off of media has that struggle. If I artificially inflate the view numbers of one media creator, the others receive less sponsorship money.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Sponsor block x new pipe and its not a problem

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

It very much is still a problem. It's unrealistic to expect the majority of YT users to use a tool like SponsorBlock.

[–] crazyminner@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Where did you get yours? I have Newpipe, but I'm having a hard time finding the version with sponsor block? Is it called Tubular now?

I switched to Pipepipe from Newpipe because I wasn't sure Newpipe was being maintained. Pipepipe has SponsorBlock.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ff0000@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago

To some degree, certainly! If at some point it comes out that a certain sponsor is just total shit, a content creator can be made aware of that. Although, with all these things, it is not always as easy to just drop a sponsor i suppose, there is always contracts involved and all of that. So not expecting a creator to be able to drop a sponsor all of a sudden.

[–] ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I made sure to dislike the moment this sponsorship came up and closed the video. With analytics they should see the connection.

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 7 points 5 months ago

i like ur optimism. we need more ppl to do this.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 months ago

At least consider it. It will make shady sponsors less valuable and more genuine sponsors more valuable.

They absolutely deserve to be blasted in the comments for a bad sponsor. It will make people reconsider their viewing decisions. If the video itself also wasn't great, don't be afraid to give it a big fat dislike, especially if you have the return YouTube dislike extension.

Additionally, if there are too many ads and sponsors, make your voice heard in the comments, and the creator might be sympathetic. I certainly am when I'm on the receiving end of a comment like that on my channel.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I do think we should normalize scrutinizing the sponsors for their shittiness, but not necessarily the content creator. They are just trying to pay the bills, and aren't going to be aware of the problems with every company out there (though nearly every product that uses YouTubers for marketing is a scam in some way or other)

I don’t think just trying to pay the bills is an acceptable excuse for not doing more research before signing a contract.

I’ve got bills to pay, can I go mug my neighbour. Now I’m not sure how long Better Help have had a contract with Veritasium, but it’s been known for some time they’re shady at best.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't watch any video that's sponsored by Ground News, and I complain in the comments

[–] ksynwa@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What's wrong with ground news?

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 months ago (6 children)

There's no such thing as unbiased news. News is informed by all kinds of biases at every moment, many of which are completely innocuous and harmless, even good.

For example, most news sources refer to people in stories as men or women, and use gendered pronouns. Gender is a social construct, so recognising it implicitly in an article is a bias. An unbiased news source would refer to everyone as they/them and never present a gender identity as fact. It would always refer to people as people. Well, except for the fact that personhood is a social construct too. And so is humanity. They'd have to call everyone beings or entities. And that's bad. An unbiased news source is bad. The news should have the bias that it presents people's gender identities as facts.

What Ground News presents as unbiased stories are usually center-biased stories, not unbiased stories. And the lie that centrism is unbiased is dangerous. Every story on Ground News is equally biased, because everything is a bias. Their bias rating is a dangerous lie. Because encouraging people to see the most common view as unbiased causes people to go along with whatever view is common, even if it's bad. Even if, for example, the government has been taken over by Nazis. Bias confirmation machines like Ground News are always dangerous, but they're especially dangerous when fascism begins to be normalised, which is the struggle we're currently facing.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

they don't write the stories though, so can't control the pronouns. I do appreciate their effort to try make sense of the news with an alignment reading, but I agree with you that it encourages centrism in the long run

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but why aren't they marking all the news sources that implicitly push the idea that gender exists as biased in that way? Why do they ignore certain biases and not others? The answer is that they're conflating bias with controversy. If something is uncontroversial, they're saying it's unbiased. That's bad.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I guess they level a political narrative over that of social narratives. As someone who's not LGBT (but obviously will always vote for the rights of others), it's the political one I care about most to read, and I'm guessing a majority of their readers too.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not an LGBT thing. I'm using gender as an example of a thing we can all agree is a social construct so I can make my point about bias without having to get any more controversial with it. But if you really want a political example, here is the same point but more political:

Every news source that refers to the existence of the United States of America is biased. The USA is a social construct, it doesn't have objective existence. And many groups have objected to its existence, as it's a genocidal state illegally occupying stolen land. Any news article which refers to the USA as though it were a thing that exists is implicitly pushing settler colonial narratives. This is a clear bias. Ground news should be labelling any article which refers to the USA as biased.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Anything, if you examine it, is just a social construct. The news sometimes wield these constructs to create false narratives to constrict our views/rights, but more often than not, the news is simply trying to convey a set of events from its perspective using a shared grammar that the majority of its audience will understand.

We cant push the frontier without having a base.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I worry that so many calculations for everything would be very tiring quickly. I don't think I could do it.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

Then choose to wilfully accept good biases into your life, and don't strive for the imaginary, impossible ideal of "unbiased"

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

To begin with, they operate with some very shady definitions of left and right.

Any political coordinates centered on American view of left and right are super skewed and already biased. If you consider Democrats to be "the left", boy something is wrong with that.

And when this happens, what you think is "unbiased news" is really just two flavors of right-wing propaganda, one a bit more extreme than the other.

When capitalists are doing minor successions to be just a bit less evil, this is not "left", and whatever is between that and fascist dictatorship is not the enlightened center.

TL;DR Ground News is one of the places that teach you the position between American Left and American Right is actually neutral and balanced. It is very much not.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

that's every mainstream news in the US. All of them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Dr becky (atrology channel) also did a few sponsorships with them and got lots of unhappy comments under those videos. Not sure if she still sticks with them or no. Aaaaaaaand I just checked her last video from 7 hours ago and she still gets sponsorships from them. Top comments are asking her to stop accepting those sponsorships pointing out their doings.

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Dr

astrology channel

One of these things does not add up...

[–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I had to look up the term to notice what I did. I will leave it be I guess. Haha

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Wait, what term? I wasn't saying you made a mistake; I was pointing out the ridiculousness of someone being a doctor but dealing in such unscientific nonsense as astrology.

Β 


Edit: Or, wait, did you actually make a typo and it was supposed to be "astronomy"? If so, I didn't even realize. xD

[–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Yep, hahaha. Not a native english speaker and I confused the terms.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί