I don’t understand the mechanism. I could see a benefit for an advertiser if there was self censorship for criticising that advertiser, but what is the connection between that and self censorship for the word nazi? Or is it another mechanism?
Advertisers don’t want to be viewed next to or adjacent to “problematic” content. Hence no swearing in the first 5 or so minutes in a YouTube video (right after add have played), self censoring words like cunt and suicide so algorithms don’t deprioritise you (again, because platforms make money from ads, so they won’t promote videos that aren’t as friendly).
It’s all in the service to appease advertisers, and they require platforms to roll out the red carpet wherever they tread.
I don’t understand the mechanism. I could see a benefit for an advertiser if there was self censorship for criticising that advertiser, but what is the connection between that and self censorship for the word nazi? Or is it another mechanism?
Advertisers don’t want to be viewed next to or adjacent to “problematic” content. Hence no swearing in the first 5 or so minutes in a YouTube video (right after add have played), self censoring words like cunt and suicide so algorithms don’t deprioritise you (again, because platforms make money from ads, so they won’t promote videos that aren’t as friendly).
It’s all in the service to appease advertisers, and they require platforms to roll out the red carpet wherever they tread.
The general atmosphere is “better” meaning the advertiser sees his “content” amongst more friendly surroundings