|
|
|
|
|
by bilbo0s
2197 days ago
|
|
>The cpu/disk/bandwidth to store and serve text are so small as to be irrelevant. Just wondering, in your view, if these costs are so "small", who pays them when advertisers abandon the website? Where does the money come from to cover these costs? (Small as they are.) Full Disclosure: My own belief is that IRL these costs, especially for something at the scale of YouTube, are not likely to be terribly "small" at all. I seriously doubt most organizations could countenance such costs with no return on that investment. |
|
If advertisers completely pull their ads off a website even though only 1% (say) of the content they were sponsoring is actually controversial, then the blowback has cost the platform 100x more than what they were paying to host the controversial content.
I think hosting costs can be significant overall, yes. But I think the marginal hosting cost of allowing controversial content is not significant.
It's only a significant cost when it impacts the revenue stream for the bulk of what the website is publishing.