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: 3
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Why is this thread not in the hoax dumpster yet?




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Explains a lot. Fall in line, you don't want to be labeled as an "ist" for speaking your mind!



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

I would venture to guess because it isn't a hoax. Even if there was a mistake made, it wasn't intentional.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Does it seem like I have any trouble speaking my mind?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Nope, but by throwing these massive labels on everyone and everything you deem as 'alt-right' you end up boxing yourself into a corner where can can't see reason.

It's been shown he's anti-trump, he voted for Hillary even though he didn't want to but in his mind she was the better choice. He must be a rare breed of alt right that votes Hillary....



Also, in the H3 apology video, it is still quite sketchy about the advertisers involved, versus the amount of money the video made. This is by no means a fully proven hoax, there are inconsistencies and is a hit piece which caused a billion dollars to be spent elsewhere.
When a Billion gets moved about, people notice.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

Speaking of reason. What reason would WSJ have to this? It seems to be a stupid risk for anyone.

ETA: The logic just doesn't play out. Google wouldn't sue for libel?
edit on 4/3/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I've touched on the reasons a few times, but here's it is again for you.

Old media types are losing money, you need a growing audience to attract advertisers to a platform. Why would coke pay the WSJ to place an ad where hardly anyone will see it? Some Youtube channels now have hundreds of thousands of views per day or more. The newer generation (40 and below) that I talk with barely, if at all, watch regular TV programming these days. They either watch Youtube, or Netflix (which they pay for an ad free platform).

It's obvious that these older media platforms have stagnated and failed to adjust even though the writings been on the wall for a decade. That's why they are attacking Youtube now, any reason will do that drags those advertising dollars back to them, it's always about the money. Ad's have played on questionable content for years on YT, and youtube has been implementing tougher rules about when they appear, which is a difficult task to automate. But 99% of the audience knows that ad's have nothing to do really with the content of the video.

Apparently a video with the N word in the title gets automatically de-monetised by youtube, which raised H3H3's suspicions that the WSJ may have faked the ads appearing. He contacted the channel owner, who showed he made $8 off the video months ago before it was de-monetised after a few days. But the WSJ shows it was playing an ad but the view count shows that as a very recent thing.

But there is some doubt as to whether there may be a third party who claimed the channel, and made money... But even that is weird.


Not to mention, the WSJ started attacking Pewdiepie calling him an alt right Nazi a couple of months back. He lost his show, even though everything they said he was was taken completely out of context. They are dying and desperate, they no longer care to be a source of 'news', they just need an audience, if they have to lie or create controversy to get one they are going to try anything to remain relevant.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

Just because people aren't watching news on the television anymore doesn't mean they aren't clicking on articles online. The old standby's are still very profitable. I would think that the things they've done in the past to keep them safe from lawsuits are still in effect today... mainly, if you're gonna call someone out, you had better damn well have proof.

The article causing all the hub bub specifically calls out Google for monetizing racism. If anything were fake about the screenshots do you not think Google would be up WSJs ass and around the corner by now?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
well i guess if they didnt photoshop the ads in then they wouldnt have been able to print the story, talk about fake news!



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: Kali74

^^
First to make it about Trump.



I made it about a Trump supporter. I don't buy that he voted for Hillary. He's alt-right all the way.

ETA: I also very much support people being able to make careers from making videos and doing live streaming. That doesn't mean I have to blindly support all of them.


I was just in a finger pointing mood. I always wanted to be the first to say that though I must admit!



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

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.


Irate and clueless. The new preferred stance of the Internet poster.

And who is this little fellow casting vague and unsupported aspersions?
Am I the target of your twaddling attack?
Because I said that I didn't know something, that makes me... what, ignorant/clueless and asking for a quick lesson?
Those of us who think they know everything must really bug those of you who really do!
I apologize for my ignorance, lil guy, didn't mean to make you haul out your sandbox so you could stick your head in it.
As you grow up, though, unless you are a Republikkkan, you learn that understanding your areas of ignorance, and asking for information, is a healthy grown-up thing to do, on many levels.
If there is something specific that you'd like to discuss, like a grown-up, respectfully, I'm right here.

Have a nice day! *__-






edit on 5-4-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Hmmm, so seems the ads were genuine. However, the attack has a massive rabbit hole.

Watch this video and honestly say that nothing fishy is up with old media attacking YouTube to steal back advertisers.



Seems there's a guy who has the tech to improve YT ads, but google cant fix the problem without 'stealing' his tech. And who is the guy feeding the stuff to the WSJ? The surprise is in the video above, and I'm not shocked one bit.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 06:31 AM
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?


Sorry, but Trump is the new Obama.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join