I watch a vegan channel that Youtube recommended to me quite often, and Im not even vegan.
Based on her page, showing dogs being boiled alive, I think vegan isnt perhaps the best description for that content. A vegan channel is someone showing how to make salads.
YouTube should be smarter than having a Boolean for 'monetiziable'.
Eg, vegan channel showing animal cruelty should be marked as showing 'animal cruelty (newsworthy)' and advertisers should be able to say they do/don't want to advertise on the 'animal cruelty (newsworthy)' tag.
A big game hunting company might not want to advertise on that tag. Nor would a children's toy manufacturer. Fine.
But the RSPCA, an environmentalist politician, or The Body Shop might want to advertise and if I was a vegan I might want to give them my money.
> A vegan channel is someone showing how to make salads.
I can see that's the most common case, but check out for example /r/vegan - it's mostly content about vegan ethics.
Couldn't agree more. Google is in the business of deciding what users want to see, and also apparently deciding, for the advertisers, who they want to do business with.
I dont disagree that makes sense, in that it theoretically makes Youtube more money as well. Based on that, it seems like they are incentivized to figure it out. Unless that long tail of "non wholesome" videos really doesnt have enough money behind it to make it worthwhile to bother with. Which Im guessing is the case.
Based on her page, showing dogs being boiled alive, I think vegan isnt perhaps the best description for that content. A vegan channel is someone showing how to make salads.