I get what you are saying. But replace "I" and "Me" with "we" and "us"
I still don't really agree, firstly, if he meant "we" he should have said "we". it's not like that was live, he had all of the rest of his life to make that video say exactly what it needed to say.
Also regardless of what he meant to say, it is an issue for me that most of these adpocalyse complaints really seem to show a huge sense of entitlement.
there are a bunch of people saying that they "deserve" money, they "deserve" to have advertisers pay them, they "don't care" what advertisers want, and what sort of content that advertisers want to have their videos on they just want the money, and if they can't have the money then they won;t make videos any more.
I feel that this is silly for a number of reasons.
first, if you made distributing videos for free on the internet your primary source of income, then, I have no sympathy for the person who never thought that people might stop looking at their content. I mean it's not like previously really popular you tube channels hadn't gone downhill before now!
second, it seems to show a HUGE misunderstanding of how things work. back in broadcast TV, brands get to buy targeted ad space, like you have companies who pay a premium for the first ad in the superbowl half time. you have brands that pay a premium for adverts in the shows that will be on whilst people are eating, or less of a premium at 3am when people are sleeping. you get to buy channels and time slots...
on you tube, you don't get to do that. you get to target a type of user inside vague boundaries, but, I'm sure you'll probably recall (as a male) that you've probably seen adverts for make up, or high heels, etc, for that advertiser, that's a waste of money.
then you have situations where advertisers, (like KFC) have found that they are the advert playing before some sort of PETA KFC cruelty video. - you see how the advertiser gets shafted there, not only do they pay to advertise to people who (if watching Peta videos) are clearly not going to be buying their stuff, but also they just gave Peta money to start more campaigns to harass them with.
so as advertiser cannot (short of direct sponsoring "this video is sponsored by audible/squarespace") advertise on specific videos, the advertisers, (the ONLY people who are actually making youtube worth running to google!) are asking, "can you ensure that adverts are ONLY shown on family friendly content."
And yes, it truely sucks that pewdie pie made nazi jokes, it truely sucks that anti terrorism adverts paid for by governments were shown before and therefore funded jihadi recruitment videos, it sucks that there were all those videos marked as "child friendly" that weren't, that were shown in the youtube kids app (where there is no direct "report" button) and that those videos were ad sponsored... and yes it sucks that Logan Paul put a dead body on youtube, and that video was ad sponsored.
And it really sucks that "innocent parties" appear to be caught up in it...
but as I said, these guys are not innocent parties. whilst the sling shot channel isn't showing bodies, or making nazi jokes, or targeting sexualised content to children, it is still a channel that suggests that it's pretty cool to fire knives from slingshots, (and it is) but it's not great if you are a company like walmart that sell sling shots that might have a "come to walmart" ad followed by a now see what you could do with the knives and slingshots that you can buy there video!
(it's not an issue specific to the sling shot channel it's just an easy example.
