Even while in the middle of harassing the migrants, the livestreamers could still be heard thanking those who were sending them money via YouTube’s Super Chat function or through other platforms like Venmo and the Christian-aligned crowdfunding site GiveSendGo. In one situation, while Fulfer was shouting at migrants in Arizona telling them to go home, he stopped briefly to call out a supporter who had sent him $50 on Venmo.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    YouTube doesn’t care how or why you make money as long as they make money too.

    If they could get away with legally showing child porn, they would.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        How could they legally show porn and ensure kids wouldn’t see it? Because I guarantee you that’s why they don’t allow it.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            So you think it would be feasible for YouTube to ask for age verification for every porn video uploaded? Or do you think they should just have general age verification on YouTube like a porn site and restrict everyone under 18 to YouTube Kids?

            Because I guarantee you that they have yet to invent an algorithm that can detect porn 100% of the time.

            • Rediphile
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              YouTube already does have age restricted videos.

              And do you actually think they don’t already detect and flag potential porn using an algorithm? How do you think they prevent most of it from being on the site in the first place?

              No one anywhere was claiming a 100% detection rate, which is why sometimes porn does in fact end up on YouTube until flagged manually by people who view it.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                Oh, so it is possible for YouTube to expose children to porn? Hm. Maybe that’s why they delete it.

                • Rediphile
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It is possible regardless, even when they try their best to delete it as they do now.

                  What’s your solution here? Shut down all video streaming services entirely? Have actual humans reviewing every single video uploaded before being made public?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    There isn’t a solution. Google is greedy and amoral and will allow anything on their platform if they think it will help them increase their revenue.

                    I guess the “solution” is to end capitalism. I don’t foresee that happening without society collapsing, so…

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Google could simply have a porn branch of YouTube separate from YouTube itself. They don’t want to deal with the trouble of hosting that kind of content and the bad publicity that would come with it.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Right. As I said, if they could get away with it, they would. I don’t mean technically, I mean if they could do it and make money at it.

    • kent_eh
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      If they could get away with legally showing child porn, they would.

      Only if they want to face another advertiser revolt.

      And, as you said, thwy want to make money. Passing off their advertisers is counterproductive to that goal.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        True, I should have said that if they could legally get away with it and knew they wouldn’t lose advertisers.

        • Rediphile
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          So basically only in a wildly different world in which child porn was widely socially accepted?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            I think you are missing my point- YouTube doesn’t care what is on its platform as long as its legal (or at least not so illegal that they themselves would get into trouble) and they can make money from it.

            They don’t care if Neo-Nazis make money. They don’t care if children are exposed to things they shouldn’t be. They don’t give a fuck.

            People have uploaded videos to YouTube where animals were tortured. Did YouTube get penalized for that? No, the people who have done it have gotten arrested. YouTube supposedly deletes them when they find them. They also do not give one flying fuck about the revenue those videos generate before they are taken down. Do they take that revenue and donate it to their local animal shelter? No. They use it to increase their bottom line.

            And yes, if somehow child porn was legal and they felt that advertisers wouldn’t leave them if they hosted it, they would host it.

            Because Google is absolutely amoral. Money is the only thing that matters.

            • Rediphile
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m not sure why one would expect anything else from a for-profit corporation.

              I think that perhaps the bigger issue is that NeoNazis and such are socially acceptable enough to be permitted. That’s a societal issue more than a Google issue. As you point out, if society did not tolerate it and thus it hurt their bottom line, they would remove it.