::: spoiler Summary Part 3 21. In some cases, third-party YouTube creators upload “re-distributed” content, such as ESPN, CBS Sports, or Fox Sports college football game live streams or episodes of TV shows such as Family Guy. After ~12 hours, the creators edit the videos to cut out the “re-distributed” content and they edit the title, description, and meta-data of the videos to something unrelated. This appears to prevent brand advertisers from knowing against what sorts of content their ads were served on in their original form, and suggests that YouTube ad delivery placement reports may not accurately convey what sorts of content the ads were served against before the videos were retro-actively edited and re-named. 22. Disney, Lionsgate, Paramount, Universal/Focus Features, Bleecker Street, and streaming services like Disney+, Peacock, Sling TV, YouTube TV, and Hulu/FX, in their capacity as advertisers, have run ads against uploaded copies of their own intellectual property on third-party channels, thus potentially funding it. 23. The presidential election campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, as well as major brands such Procter & Gamble, had ads served on videos that appear to belong to various professional film studios, such as “Deadpool & Wolverine”, whilst the film was being shown in movie cinemas in the summer of 2024. 24. The list of brands whose ads were served on third-party, “re-distributed” content YouTube channels which were later deleted by YouTube (and thus, likely retroactively redacted from their ad delivery placement reports), includes: a. the New York Times, the presidential election campaigns of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the House Majority PAC (a Democrat Super PAC), Procter & Gamble (P&G),Unilever, BMO Bank, Ben & Jerry’s, McDonald’s, US Bank, Crossmedia, Samsung, Disney+, FX networks, WarnerMedia (HBO Max), Mint Mobile, Focus Features (owned by NBCUniversal), Kellanova (Special K, Frosted Flakes), State Farm, Verizon, Visible (by Verizon), T-Mobile, Disney, Hulu, Mazda, the Wall Street Journal, Nissan, North Face, Paramount+, Health for California Insurance Center, A&E Television Networks (Lifetime), NBCUniversal Media (Peacock), Volvo cars, Lionsgate, Macy’s, Adobe, SlingTV, Hyundai, Genesis, AAA (American Automobile Association), Amazon, AMC Plus, Mindshare USA (part of GroupM/WPP), Peloton, Linkedin, TD Bank, Grammarly, General Mills, Ubisoft, Zaxby's, Dentsu X, Dentsu Carat, OMD (part of Omnicom), Publicis Media, Alfa Romeo (part of Stellantis), Starcom Worldwide, Horizon Media, Canvas Worldwide, Safelite, Ricolino (owned by Mondelez), Save The Children, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Hasbro, Kinder (Ferrero), TruGreen, California Teachers Association, Frontier Internet, Ticketmaster, Meta (Facebook), Ray Ban, JetBlue, Quest Nutrition, Shopify, General Motors, Ruiz Foods, JPMorgan Chase, Currax Pharmaceuticals, TikTok, B&H PHoto & Video, Invesco, VaynerMedia, Kingsford, St. George’s University, Empower insurance, Ezcater, Philo, GolfNow, World Vision Fund, Discover Puerto Rico, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Jimmy Fund), Novo Nordisk, Ooni, Aquasana, Panasonic, Atlassian, Caterpillar, Fandango, Harbor Freight Tools, Castlery Furniture, Blue Diamond Hotels, and others. b. Zefr, which is a Partner of the YouTube Measurement Program, appears to have been observed transacting ads for Dexcom on a “re-distributed” video of Netflix’s “Squid Game 3” which was later removed. Channel Factory, which declares itself to be a Google Premier Partner, part of the YouTube Measurement Program, and is TAG “Certified for Brand Safety”, was observed transacting ads on behalf of brands such as: General Mills on “re-distributed” YouTube videos of the movie “John Wick: Chapter 4” on a channel which was removed from YouTube, Sephora and Quest Nutrition on “re-distributed” YouTube videos of the movie “Spider Man: Homecoming” on a channel which was removed from YouTube, Tena (part of Essity) on “re-distributed” YouTube videos of the movie: “Deadpool & Wolverine” on a channel which was removed from YouTube “because it violated [YouTube’s] Community Guidelines” (archived here: https://www.loom.com/share/9fff55d650eb4fd68ae938fc19aa0299) :::

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Maybe I don't want you to stop, big boy.

Yay more hype. Just what we needed more of, it's hype, at last

It dissolves into salt water. Except it doesn't dissolve, this is not the term they should be using, you can't just dry out the water and get the plastic back. It breaks down into other things. I'm pretty sure an ocean full of dissolved plastic would be a way worse ecological disaster than the current microplastic problem... I've seen like 3-4 articles about this now and they all use the term dissolve and it's pissing me off.

I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.