I've always wondered: When companies decide they need to look good for investors, it means to be clean and non-controversial. Why is this? Are investors old and out of touch or something?
They have to look good to advertisers. And the megacorps of the world need to be sure their brands are not associated with anything "controversial" so they can appeal to as many Americans as possible.
I believe the consensus is that the most profitable target market are children and young teens.
Basically they want to reach as wide as possible, so they tend to clear out or lock any controversy content behind something, even to the point of being ball-less and/or pro-fascism.
Oh, they love controversial content. If they can put ads on it. Engagement and hatewatching are great for an ad business.
It just can't be formatted in a way advertisers want to avoid or regulators want to regulate. The result leads to very weird, very toxic patterns of content and nobody wants to fix it (or has any particularly effective ideas about how).
Are investors old and out of touch or something?
Yes.
Investors tend to be extemely risk averse, so the slightest little thing might scare them off. Even if they decide to take the chance anyway, they still want it to be as clean as possible, to minimizing the risk.
Even the slightest improvement may increase the investment by millions, or even billions, of dollars, so it's worth the trouble.
First of all, who's your AnR? A mountain climber that plays and electric gitarr? But eh don't know the meaning of dope when he's looking for suit 'n tie rap that cleaner than a bar of soap.
I feel like The Onion should host their own PeerTube instance, just for the sake of using an incredibly cheeky domain name like ifuckinghatewatching.video or something cooler like onion.media or something
why not just tetrahedron.global?
They should also have a Tor domain too, imagine cuandi2nfh81i4juqknsk18the.onion or something lol
Infowars.video xD
Sony is finally going to release me!? Freedom!!!
Faŝistoj
Tfw I don't have to know Esperanto
You sure it's YouTube that does this or the onion guys set a flag because of a profanity in the title?
Either way, it's definitely YouTube that mandates annoying extra clicks to their frontend littered with ads and tracking cookies every time a video is age gated, which is the most infuriating part of this by far.
I've always wondered: When companies decide they need to look good for investors, it means to be clean and non-controversial. Why is this? Are investors old and out of touch or something?
They have to look good to advertisers. And the megacorps of the world need to be sure their brands are not associated with anything "controversial" so they can appeal to as many Americans as possible.
I believe the consensus is that the most profitable target market are children and young teens.
Basically they want to reach as wide as possible, so they tend to clear out or lock any controversy content behind something, even to the point of being ball-less and/or pro-fascism.
Oh, they love controversial content. If they can put ads on it. Engagement and hatewatching are great for an ad business.
It just can't be formatted in a way advertisers want to avoid or regulators want to regulate. The result leads to very weird, very toxic patterns of content and nobody wants to fix it (or has any particularly effective ideas about how).
Yes.
Investors tend to be extemely risk averse, so the slightest little thing might scare them off. Even if they decide to take the chance anyway, they still want it to be as clean as possible, to minimizing the risk.
Even the slightest improvement may increase the investment by millions, or even billions, of dollars, so it's worth the trouble.
First of all, who's your AnR? A mountain climber that plays and electric gitarr? But eh don't know the meaning of dope when he's looking for suit 'n tie rap that cleaner than a bar of soap.