It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WSJ Caught Photoshopping Pics - Their YouTube Story Is A Hoax

page: 1
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Ok so I just came across this and wanted to share .It would seem that the WSJ may have photo shopped a add on a YT vid to get them un-monetized /

I got the news from this YTber
Not sure what this all means but it may find the WSJ in deep caca




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Who is this guy? Why should we care? Honest question
edit on 62017Sundaypm430Sun, 02 Apr 2017 18:10:38 -0500America/Chicagov10 by Golantrevize because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


Could you elaborate?

Almost all photos are shopped to some extent.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I could be wrong, but it appears your title is incorrect. They didn't in fact get anything unmonetized, they photoshopped it to make it look like it was still monetized when it in fact wasn't. According to the first video the youtube vid hasn't been monetized since September of 2016 but the SS they Photoshopped was taken long after it was already un-monetized.

Just seems a pretty important distinction to make. I can't attest to why they would do any of this other than for headlines though. But you are right about being in deep chit, but only possibly from the Heavy Hitter corporations who ceased all advertising due to their reporting.

At least that is what I have taken from that first video. Haven't watched the second and probably won't.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Golantrevize

Its not about the guy its about the content which is the You Tube platform and thee WSJ photo shopping pics of adds on YT vids to make their claims in a hit piece they did . As far as why you should care well maybe you might like to think about it or not .



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Was someone betting youtube stock would drop..?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

Its kind of a complicated story from what I have read so far . This starts with the WSJ piece "Google to Simplify YouTube Advertiser Controls Amid Outcry Over Extremist Videos
Alphabet to review policies to make sure ads wouldn’t unwittingly appear next to extremist videos
By STU WOO
Updated March 20, 2017 9:36 p.m. ET
LONDON—An executive for Alphabet Inc.’s Google apologized on Monday for commercials that appeared before extremist videos on its YouTube site and said it would simplify tools that enable advertisers to control where their ads appear."
www.wsj.com... The whole piece is behind a pay wall . But the guy that did the story also made comments on his tweeter claiming he found these YT with adds that should not be there and it turns out that they probably were not but the adds were photo shopped into the pics used on the WSJ piece .



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Golantrevize
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Who is this guy? Why should we care? Honest question

Moreso, I have no clue to what initials WSJ even mean.
Nor, as you say, do I have any inspiration to search/find out.
People who speak in shorthand assume that we all do.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

h3h3 Productions shouldn't be trusted. I think it's a scheme to smear WSJ because they haven't come to Trumps heel.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

Wall Street Journal.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: the2ofusr1

h3h3 Productions shouldn't be trusted. I think it's a scheme to smear WSJ because they haven't come to Trumps heel.


For god's sake, can we have one thread where someone doesn't go blaming Trump for something?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Golantrevize
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Who is this guy? Why should we care? Honest question

Moreso, I have no clue to what initials WSJ even mean.
Nor, as you say, do I have any inspiration to search/find out.
People who speak in shorthand assume that we all do.


WJS is a pirate punk band from Somalia.
Or it could mean the Wall Street Journal.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: the2ofusr1

h3h3 Productions shouldn't be trusted. I think it's a scheme to smear WSJ because they haven't come to Trumps heel.


For god's sake, can we have one thread where someone doesn't go blaming Trump for something?


I'm almost sure that it is impossible at this point.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Where did I blame trump for this? I doubt Trump called up this failtuber and said hey do what you can about WSJ huh. This is all on Evan who is a rabid Trump supporter.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Yeah, this view point is really distracting to the actual substance of this thread.

Why should H3H3 not be trusted? For better or worse, Ethan is a big voice in the YouTube community - starting up the FUPA (a program where content creators can get legal help when big corporations/individuals attack them). Like it or not YouTubing is a huge business, especially in a world where more and more jobs are disintegrating.

This is people's livelihood, people feed there families and have taken in some case a 2/3 salary wage cut overnight. Can you survive on 1/3 of your pay? Sure, for the massive YouTubers, 1/3rd is still probably a decent pay, but for the smaller more niche channels that's basically the end of their careers.


So the importance when an OLD established media giant like WSJ (Wall Street Journal, for that poster above) tries to deliberately smear and shame Youtube causing a 750mil-1billion loss in revenue practically overnight there is going to be a need to look a bit farther than "hurdur TRUMP" and actually address what the WSJ is trying to do here.

They are dying and this is a desperate attempt to kill off YouTube so they can get those advertisers to spend money in their papers and online "presence" which compared to the reach of youtube it's no wonder they are pulling such a blatant and desperate move.

Have ads appeared on dodgy videos? Sure. But one would think the internet age users know that ad's have nothing to do with content. Can YouTube do a better job of organising how the ads appear and when? Yep, they need to do so and quickly because peoples lives are going under right now, and making big corps afraid to advertise because the WSJ will smear them from a DOCTORED image, is disingenuous and extremely damaging and also market manipulation.

I hope there is a class action lawsuit against the WSJ for this.

(btw Kali, Ethan from H3H3 voted for Hillary which is an odd move for a Trump supporter, sheesh - gets your facts straight. It shows his tweet where he says he voted for Hillary but congratulates Trump on his win regardless)

Edit, whoops, Konduit added a similar thing below whilst I was editing.
edit on 2-4-2017 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Ethan* and h3h3 never supported Trump. In fact he made it very clear in his videos that he wasn't going to endorse any candidate.

Stop spreading disinfo to suit your narrative.

WSJ approached google and several ad companies claiming that racist videos were earning money from google ads... which turned out to be a lie, since the video in question was demonetized 7 months ago when it barely had a hundred views.

Using this disinfo they convinced big advertisers to pull from YT. In fact, YT can now sue WSJ for millions in lost revenue since the entire hit piece is based on a lie.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Kali74
Using this disinfo they convinced big advertisers to pull from YT. In fact, YT can now sue WSJ for millions in lost revenue since the entire hit piece is based on a lie.

And I hope that's exactly what they do. It could be this is a case of the author of the article fooling his editor but the WSJ should be held accountable. News organizations, in general, have lost their way.
edit on 4-2-2017 by LogicalGraphitti because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: the2ofusr1

h3h3 Productions shouldn't be trusted. I think it's a scheme to smear WSJ because they haven't come to Trumps heel.


For god's sake, can we have one thread where someone doesn't go blaming Trump for something?


Nope. And Kali clearly knows nothing about H3H3, aka Ethan and Hila.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
For anyone still wondering why this is significant, the threads on Reddit are really in depth and pretty good at explaining why this is defamation and why WSJ is most likely going to be sued out of existence very soon.

There is even a conspiracy angle related to some patented software that searches youtube videos looking for ads on racist videos. Overall it is much more interesting than the OP was able to explain. Not to mention kind of getting it incorrect.

In any case, we will be hearing a loooooot more about this in the coming days and weeks I am sure.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
These media platforms are literally throwing themselves onto their sword in the name of PC. Twitter is tanking, YouTube is close behind as the exodus of content creators is already happening. GAB and Vimeo are on the rise.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join