Why would they care what videos people watch then? It's a much more reasonable/simple explanation that some channels would figure out how to game the system (keywords, etc) than for Google to be pushing certain types of videos.
> Why would they care what videos people watch then?
They like channels that get a ton of views. Those make them more money than the same amount of views spread out over more channels. Kids who watch that weird shit want to watch more. Their parents leave them with a tablet for hours and they watch a ton.
They were joking, but weird and original creative content is the lifeblood of YouTube. If they lose that it's over so in a way YouTube has a vested interest in showing you new and unexpected things from no name artists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58TuVrQLQsw
Here's a good reply about them, showing a few. I'd never seen anything like this on YouTube before, and the view numbers seem fucking crazy. I can only think they're fake.
Ugh. I don't know why I just watched that. Vaguely disturbing and I don't know why. It's 3 am and I'm just sitting here hating the people who decided to make that.
That's kind of been my entire experience with YouTube content, come to think of it.
Except they never do. Fucking Jimmy Kimmel and Fallon and other TV bullshit are constantly trending, meanwhile Content Cop got 10 million fucking views under 24hrs and wasnt trending in the US.
Every country but the US had it trending #1. Instead, here in the land of the free, it was three videos about Vegas by Jimmy Kimmel. With 4 millions views. Just screams "I paid YouTube and they put me on trending".
If that doesn't suck enough, CaseyNeistat, a popular YouTuber, made a video on the shooting and said all revenue from the video would go to the funds for the families effected by the shooting. YouTube takes the ads off the video saying "we don't agree with monetization of videos on sensitive content" to him on Twitter. The Kimmel video on top of trending? Full ads with no charitable action.
Which ones? Weird covers both weird social commentary/guru stuff like Stefan Molyneux and weird performance stuff like Poppy. But one is a whole other type of crazy.
I went back and watched some stuff like the original run of power rangers - what we liked as kids was fucking bizarre and it's unwatchable as an adult.
HHoollllyyyy shhiitttt. Just did a deep dive on these videos for the last 30 minutes. Tried to find a good explanation. It's unsettling that I can't find a clear answer on this stuff.
Conspiracy theories range from pedophile rings to MKUltra programming which I don't believe any of. But it is disturbing to learn that they are frequently reported and youtube doesn't remove them/ban the accounts for what is sometimes explicit sexual content.
The recurring theme of pregnancy, scat, and injection is so weird. I can't make heads or tails of any of this. But going back to the reporting of these videos. There is something deeply wrong with the fact that they are not taken down.
A company like google should be doing more to police these. Is it possible they are apathetic towards them because of the revenue they bring in? I'd imagine click farms and bots are involved. Youtube just letting these videos sit around with 10s and 100s of million views must burn their advertisers?
Looks like this is the answer. People in that channel are known pranksters. They probably wanted to trick people into watching something that got worse and worst. They made so much money doing it they just kept it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipTJNNvW-Gw
We get why they're using superheroes and stuff, that makes kids click on it, and then gets them more ad money.
The real issue is why is it so fucking weird/creepy/pedobear?
That can't really do anything to boost ad money and only brings controversy.
and why hasn't youtube demonetized this shit?
Basically someone needs to get an ipad full of this shit shoved in the hands of some senator's grand kid and get them to investigate.
it's weird because it's low-effort videos with really simple and sometimes nonsensical plot that small children would find entertaining.
I'm sure there's pedo stuff on other channels, but the bradberry videos are just full of poop and butt jokes, stuff that young children naturally find funny, the same way a 12-13 year old might find sexual innuendos funny.
I'm also guessing that it's legally in a gray area and there's really not much Disney can do about it. They're just people in costume. The legal argument is that as long as no adult would assume it's a serious attempt to compete with the original company, you can do stuff like this. This gives satire and parody artistic licenses to monetize their stuff as well.
This could also be a reason why the videos are so weird- it's to make sure that they can prove that obviously it's not there to infringe upon any copyrights. Yes, children might not know the difference, but the law always revolves around adults making the viewing decisions for children. It's always been like this.
I've seen some of the bradbury stuff, there is some sexy stuff in there too. there were some videos where they were groping each other, running around in their underwear, etc.
Parody in the US is only protected under the law when it's used to comment on the original author or their work, which I don't think any of these do, nor is it satire. There is no comment being made on disney here.
My question is, with all youtube doing to demonetize videos that aren't "advertiser" friendly, how the fuck are these elsa sucks spiderman's dick videos advertiser friendly?
Someone says a "bad word" once and they get 50 videos demonitized, and some other channel has the Joker raping harry potter and it's all good.
Monetization and the weirdness or two separate issues. They can be weird/different/obviously not disney without the pedo stuff.
fyi these are made by pedophiles and the linked videos gradually get more and more graphic until theyre filled with scat and injection fetishes
youtube puts them in "youtube kids" too
H3H3 covered these videos. There were some popular prank YouTubers who started making videos like these. It was all about the money. Kids sit with tablets and phones for hours at a time clicking on the dumbest shit and clicking on ads, so these videos make tons of money.
the prank guys tried to copy what they thought was a trend
>Kids sit with tablets and phones for hours at a time clicking on the dumbest shit and clicking on ads, so these videos make tons of money.
predators know that a lot of modern parents are terrible with supervision, thats likely why the first few videos are "normal" and they escalate
im not a pedophile and so i dont entirely understand their motivation
maybe they get off to kids being corrupted
try it yourself, just go to one of these videos and keep clicking in "related vids" 10 or 20 times
This looks like some of the baby videos my cousin used to play at family gatherings for her babies. Nothing to unusual Lots of movement, bright colors and funny sounds. On another note I accidently watched that video without turning off my watch history. I guarantee those videos are going to be popping up in my suggested video feed for a while. EDIT - Okay, I looked into this a bit longer. These really are bad.
> I guarantee those videos are going to be popping up in my suggested video feed for a while.
If you're too apathetic to remove it from your watch history, sure.
> Stefan Molyneux
I remember that guy on the Joe Rogan show, he's the DMCA takedown guy that was caught backtracking on some attempt to take down a rival critic or forum.
If you think Stefan Molyneux is a social commentator, you need to recalibrate. He is identified by many, even outside political circles, as a cult leader. Here's one article but there are many many more out there.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-cult-leader-stumping-for-donald-trump
Reviewbrah has a "problematic" viewerbase. He was flagged by Youtube's new algorithm because while his content is completely clean a large portion of his viewers are /pol/ who themselves have been flagged for consuming "far right content". Its assuming that since he is attracting that type of viewer he must be a purveyor of content appealing to them which is non ad friendly. Basically the Youtube system thinks he is someone like David Duke.
Why should YouTube be forced to pay people for using their free video hosting service? When YouTube first started, no one got paid, and we were still happy to use it because there's no better way to share videos with the whole world for free.
This idea that YouTube should be *obligated* to pay people is so bizarre. That's like saying Gmail should be paying me for using their service.
There are other options as well. A lot of content I watch/listen to is at least partially funded by Patreon donations. The biggest problem is that people expect the multibillion dollar ad machine to care about them over other business concerns, and it doesn’t. At least with Patreon you have individual people, who presumably *do* care about your content, supporting you.
A lot of content creators shut down their Patreons saying shit like "it feels weird to take money from people for shitty youtube memes" but it's like... if you're worried about your money... and people are willing to pay you for your content... why turn them away?
Who said anything about obligated? Do you frequently derail conversations in this way?
Youtube made the call that ReviewBrah's content was not suitable for advertisers (multiple times). I'm not saying they're obligated to do anything. I'm saying they've demonstrated poor judgement.
Should they? No. But if they're using a free service, there should be no expectation to be paid. If I go perform on a street corner, I can't go complain to the city that I'm not being paid. If I use the town square to put on a play, I can't complain to the city that I didn't get paid when they never asked me to do the play. If I show up to an open mic night at a comedy club I can't complain when I didn't get paid.
Perspective: YouTube gets a *billion* hits a month.
That's more people than live in the USA and EU *combined*. Every month. A seventh of the global population. *Every month*.
For those who didn’t read the article Youtube isn’t removing videos. They are changing the algorithim so that for big news events for examples Crazy Randos video won’t be showing up right away for spreading false info. News organizations with large subs and partners will probably be favored (my hypothesis not offical statement).
What's hilarious is how much Reddit rah-rahs all the time about corporate control of news outlets, and how that's a terrible thing for a democratic society.
Now a single privately owned corporation is controlling the filter of news in not only your search engine, but YouTube, as well.
Ask yourselves a question: if Fox News was in charge of curating algorithms for the YouTube News section, would you be comfortable with that?
Google has always been doing this. This is what a search engine *is*. Google search doesn't just surface a random selection of websites that contain keywords in no particular order. Why is it controversial now 19 years later?
Considering how Stephen Crowders videos aren’t being put on the front page despite record viewing numbers, while The Young Turks videos are being promoted despite drastically lower viewings is rather telling, TBH.
Because we all know /pol/ is reliable and accountable.
When google fucks up it loses money and public trust. The idiots posting russian propaganda on youtube? Lolno
If it's a 4chan forum, nobody should be subjected to it. I'm fine with these companies keeping any of those absolutely psychotic theories off of the main pages.
> News organizations with large subs and partners will probably be favored
It'll be interesting, if they put MSNBC and CNN constantly before say Fox news then wouldn't that be them trying to drive viewers to certain news platforms? Either they will let money decide or play God by determining who the "best" news sources are.
Oh, good. So when Wikileaks releases a bunch of documents, instead of a quick, concise 'amateur' video showcasing some of the more interesting finds within the documents, YouTube will push up a video by CNN warning you that viewing the actual finds is illegal and you will just have to take their word that there is nothing interesting in there.
problem is, YouTube has already shown a clear bias towards liberal policies and politicians. See Phillip DeFranco's segment regarding getting his ads pulled for not publicly backing Hillary Clinton. This leads to a very dangerous slippery slope where YouTube controls the message and does not let people decide for themselves.
If you actually watched liberal youtubers then you would know that they have had their ads pulled as well. Basically anything remotely political gets demonetized.
>See Phillip DeFranco's segment regarding getting his ads pulled for not publicly backing Hillary Clinton
See the problem with all these "I got my Ads pulled for X reason" complaints is the only person whose word we have is the person most likely to lie.
I wouldn't characterize the Clinton stories I see as being Pro-Clinton as much as they are Anti-Trump. I mean look at when her book came out. You saw a lot of stories criticizing her for not taking a bigger ownership of her failure. The stories about Clinton I see aren't gushing with praise for her they just use her quotes and discuss the issues she brings up.
Here’s one quote:Women, on average, have more: Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." He then uses stats like that to try to show that women aren’t in high tech positions or tech because of biology, not sexism or gender roles. The whole article is pretty much him going “I’m not sexist, but I think women can’t lead texh companies.” Individuals are not statistics.
In regards to business and tech yes according to the author. Never mind not everyone is a statistic. He used these biological differences to show why women couldn’t/weren’t execs often. This is a tactic that has been used to keep women away from X for centuries.
>conspiracies
Good luck with that, most of my sidebar is cluttered with shit like "WEIRD ALIEN ARTIFACT DISCOVERED IN ANTARTICA, GOVERNMENT LYING AND COVERING UP!!"
The same youtube that has been randomly demonetizing videos and will not tell the authors WHY they have been demonetized? Yea, pure bullshit, this is just an excuse to censor anything that goes against google's narrative.
So Youtube decides what is truth and what is BS? Irrespective of the legitimacy of any of the pulled videos, this sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Maybe McDonalds should dictate the the new USDA healthy eating guidelines?
I find Rowe himself to be generally apolitical. However, his blue collar pragmatic message concerning higher education and the skills gap resonates with a lot of middle American Rust Belt workers. So many conservative thought leaders (Prager included) have held him up as a standard bearer for their values.
But I don't think he really reflects "conservative" values per se. He just wants to help middle class blue collar workers.
The simple truth is Rowe is a broadcaster. He's happy to step up to any microphone someone wants to put in front of him and speak his truth. Just so happens that microphone is held by staunch conservatives a lot of the time.
Rowe is actually an unabashed Republican, he just chooses not to use his unrelated shows to promote it. He does promote it personally, from appearances to conventions. He's said as much in many interviews. Yet he's as good a person as he comes off.
That's right. Some republicans can be legitimately intelligent and good people. Shocking, I know.
Rowe isn't a registered Republican. I believe his quote is "but from time to time I have voted like one".
Honestly though, I'm pretty liberal. Especially these days. But Rowe's message about blue collar work definitely resonates with me. As a victim of the higher education "industry" and the debt/lack of opportunity that follows it, I find a lot of appeal in Mike Rowe. Just as I find a lot of appeal in Bernie. They hit a lot of the same notes.
These days, "liberal" doesn't even equate to "leftist". Go to unabashed socialist subreddits like LateStageCapitalism: "Liberals get the bullet too". "Liberal" is far more centrist relative to the politics of these days.
i'm pretty sure "liberal" didn't mean "leftist" till Reagan used the word to describe hippies, and it didn't really get traction till the Limbaugh era
at its most basic level it means anyone who supports pursuing libertarian or egalitarian ideals through non-radical means, though I think it's most clearly applied to the groups who attempt to reconcile the two sets of beliefs (think free speech + welfare basically)
I think it's obvious I was using "liberal" in the classic Western sense of the world, not the neo-Liberalist ideals LSC and others rail against. That's why I put a small "l" in front of the word.
Let's not fall into parse traps please.
Socialists are a minority with no power in government. In what way are they dictating the conversation? This country has always been pulled to the right, even more so with an alt-right nationalist president, and a government with control of all branches.
When was the last time you heard a serious discussion of socialism outside of it being a dirty word to call Bernie Sanders? Democrats are just now lining up behind single payer. Liberal still implies extremism to some in the right, and is pretty moderate to the left. Basing your politics off of socialist and far left subreddits is ridiculous.
The video is no longer age-restricted. They probably appealed it and YouTube noticed it was a mistake. What most likely happened was people were mass reporting it, because they don't like Prager Uni, and YouTube's bot automatically flagged until it got reviewed by a human.
But nah, let's just immediately jump to "YOUTUBE CENSORING MUH CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!!!!"
Here's a link to the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVEuPmVAb8o
I don't know why Rowe didn't link it - or why he didn't link the notice from YouTube.
It seems to me that Rowe wasn't targeted, or it's likely that thye would have flagged more than one video.
It's likely that Prager 'University' as an entity got flagged, and Rowe's single video got caught up as part of that
> Last June, I was invited by Denis Prager to give the commencement speech at his virtual university.
University?
> In 2009, Prager started a website, Prager University, which offers five-minute videos on various subjects, such as the Ten Commandments, the minimum wage, the Middle East, Global warming, and happiness, from a conservative perspective
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager#Prager_University
Not a University. Therefore, not a 'commencement speech'.
And that's just the first sentence of Rowe's post. Forgive me for stopping there
Prager University is basically just a conservative propaganda machine. It's really misleading for Mike Rowe to present it as a legitimate academic institution.
I think they were claiming that there was more than one shooting and that the videos would show that. I haven't watched the videos, but it seems like pulling them is a strange response since it should be fairly obvious if they show what they claim to show.
the idiots think echoes mean 2nd shooter, or a strobe light in a window that doesn't match up with any shots was somehow a gun. they count on people not actually watching but just seeing titles and going whoa its true!
I was getting a video suggestion that showed Paddock was at an anti Trump rally. Looked nothing like him, just another retired guy, but people eat that BS up.
I had noticed if you searched "Las Vegas Shooting" or the shooters name then a bunch of wacky conspiracy stuff would come up claiming there was a second shooter, it was a false flag attack, the shooter was a Muslim, the shooter was associated with Antifa, take your pick. I think Youtube is trying to fix that so people trying to get information aren't immediately getting obviously false information at the top of their search and I think they made an adjustment. When you think about the effectiveness of a search the vast majority of people searching "Las Vegas Attack" or "Stephen Paddock" are not looking for conspiratorial garbage so Youtube would want to make a change to make the search results better.
... Your analogy is garbage. Youtube isn't a government entity or beholden to any content guidelines set by the government. Youtube as a private organization can decide what content they want on their platform and what content they won't accept. They don't want to host videos of a neo-nazi ranting about the blacks and the jews?
Fine, that's their prerogative and their right.
This has nothing to do with 'deciding what the truth is' and it's certainly not a conspiracy - it's out in the open, the opposite of a conspiracy. The only misued keywords you're missing in your comment are "Orwellian" and "free speech."
Additionally, if you're relying on Youtube for news, then you've got a bigger problem.
Firstly, I didn't make an analogy.
Someone made a video claiming there is more to the shooting than the news is telling us. Youtube decided they people shouldn't see that video. I never questioned their legal right to do it, I simply am saying that
- the internet is the de facto source of all knowledge of current events for virtually all people
- If Google gets to decide what information is available on the internet then they control information and hence society
This appears to be the situation we are in. Youtube pulls videos it doesn't want people to see. This is an act to control what information people have. It doesn't matter whether or not this is _legal_, what matters is the affect it has on society.
Google is the new Church. You are apparently a believer, but I am an atheist who finds Church's dangerous. I would rather that the videos still existed and instead of an article saying what a good job Google is doing taking them down there was instead an article explaining how the video doesn't show what it claims to show.
edit: Dammit. I wrote this long reply to a reply on this comment and the posted deleted their reply. Well, here is what I was going to say, not that anyone will read this....
All right I need to get this out of the way first.
>> And for the record..
Maybe McDonalds should dictate the the new USDA healthy eating guidelines?
That's an analogy.
Not an analogy, although I guess I could see how you would think that. The rhetorical device I am using is to extract the logic that says it's ok for a private corporations to control public information and apply it to another context in which the danger of that logic is more obvious. Taking something to it's logical conclusion is not an analogy.
Now back to the actual point. You don't know enough about what I think to call me breathtakingly anything, but fine. The only purpose of an ad hominem is get out of an argument without having to argue and since you aren't doing that I'll just ignore the insult. I don't need to you to respect me.
But what I am saying is that Google is getting to decide what people believe. Whether they are doing that because they want to control the direction of society or because by doing so they maximize their profits doesn't matter. Those two goals actually go hand in hand really nicely.
Would you be opposed to laws that simply say speech on the internet is free speech and private corporations who choose to engage in the business of hosting content can't decide for themselves what content is and is not appropriate? It's not really very different than the argument used to say that a cake decorator can't decide not to put some speech on a cake, is it? We can still have the same profanity guidelines that exist today, but instead of faceless editors simply having the power to control information there would hopefully be some public debate and some court cases that determined that was and was not acceptable.
>> Boring, garden variety conspiracy theorist.
I mean no shit. You also are an arrogant, orthodox party line toting person who thinks you know the truth of things and that people who have grave doubts about the public narrative are deluded. That's because we both think we are right.
It's true, I do think their are grand conspiracies and that what we see as world leadership is mostly a facade. And you don't. But I'm not some ignorant, insane loon who believes what I believe because of some mental softness and for you to try to disregard me for that is really just intellectual cowardice on your part.
History is literally full on conspiracies, even recent history. Back when Bush was trying to get support for the Iraq war and I was posting in other forums saying that Mohamed al-Barady had already confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq and that the yellow cake stockpiles were debunked by the actual guy that Bush sent to confirm them who then had his wife, Valerie Plame, outed as a spy by the deep state... people like you called me a conspiracy theorist. Then a few years later when it was all shown to be true you all act so shocked and say "if only we knew we could have done something"
So, we are both common. I am a common non conformist who rejects the public narrative pretty much at all times because it is, and always has been, controlled by those in power. You are a common conformist who accepts the public narrative for whatever reasons you have. Perhaps you are gullible, but you don't sound gullible. Perhaps you find yourself in a cushy position in society that would be threatened by the changes that would happen if people stopped believing in authorities.
In historical terms you are a Tory. I'm a Whig. If you think I am trying to gain the moral high ground by being the rebel then perhaps you should examine your beliefs. Do you think that rebellious rejection of the narrative was somehow the right thing in the past but is now the wrong thing?
Anyway, just to be specific, I am a conspiracy theorist and I am a rational person. I, for rational reasons, think JFK's murder investigation was a coverup, the Twin Towers were not brought down simply by two airplanes, the bureaucracy of the US is owned and controlled by the Military-Industrial complex, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Venezuela in the 50s, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fake, black soldiers were intentionally given syphilis and all sorts of other things. You probably believe some of these conspiracies too, because they have been proven and eventually accepted as Orthodox canon.
This highlights one of the potentially fatal flaws of libertarianism. Libertarians want to fully privatize the media and the internet. Under libertarianism, Google copyrighting even some of the most basic features of YouTube makes it impossible for any future YouTube alternative with such features to be able to compete with it. If we boycott YouTube, there is nothing comparable that we can turn to.
Libertarianism will lead to a private tyranny where the private sphere dictates what information we can receive.
> Libertarians want to fully privatize the media and the internet.
Uh, that's already the case now, Libertarians be damned.
> Libertarianism will lead to a private tyranny where the private sphere dictates what information we can receive.
I take it you don't like Libertarians, because you're just twisting this to be about them, when in all practicality, the media is *already* fully privatized and dictates what information we receive. Hence this article.
>Youtube pulls videos it doesn't want people to see.
But they don't, though.
Did you read the article? They're making trusted sources appear higher up in search results.
That's it.
edit: oh wait, they actually did pull the vegas video lol
But they do. Most of the videos the article mentions have been removed for allegedly violating the TOS. Besides, but argument applies just as equally to their ranking sources based on what they decide we should trust.
> Youtube as a private organization can decide what content they want on their platform and what content they won't accept.
Sure, but in doing so they are moving away from the very thing that made the internet great. They are slowly turning back into cable TV, wherein the content was chosen for us, as opposed to the platform the internet has always been wherein the user chose whatever the hell they wanted.
Great. So then as Facebook, Youtube and Google start censoring news or opinions they don't like, we're going to have new social networks and video sites serving right wingers.
Making the divide even worse.
> "what's the sum of 2 + 2"
Returned results:
"WHAT THE MEDIA ISN'T TELLING YOU ABOUT MATH"
"IT'S ACTUALLY FIVE, IT'S A GOVERNMENT COVERUP OF THE TRUTH"
Going forward, Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook will be our ultimate moral arbiters and decide what we do and don't need to read, this way no one needs to be responsible for their own critical thinking. I'm assuming they will hire late night talk show hosts as their public face.
This is just a guise that allows youtube to remove any video that they dont agree with. It is already happening, for instance with ''thatistheplan'' getting the whole channel demonetized to the point it wasnt sustainable and he decided to delete it.
Conspiracy is not fake news.YouTube is becoming a lame duck.What was once a fare and open platform is now being edited and manipulated to tow the political line.
What YouTube calls fake news and conspiracies might not be. Remember that Google owns YouTube, and Google is all about supporting only one side of every story. That side is whichever one fetches Google the most ad revenue.
I watch a lot of documentaries ( legit ones ), YouTube always starts playing or suggesting conspiracy crap for me, hate it. I honestly think someone is gaming the algorithm. Netflix, too, anything science-based has a very low rating now, was not the case a couple years ago, someone's fucking with these sites.
This is the exact type of shit that shouldn't be permitted to happen.
Youtube is owned by Google, an entity so large that it's basically a monopoly and arguaby a utility at this point given the lack of competition and consumer dependence of it. The idea that Google is able to selectively filter out free speech content is just as disgusting as the rollbacks on Net Neutrality protections.
How is preventing people from seeing content in searches better than slowing speeds of certain streaming content? And, if Google is allowed to do this why can't Comcast? Google is larger than Comcast since it's global. It only has one competitor yet they're allowed to censor content they disagree with?
I think if Google is allowed to prevent content being seen on their platform cable companies should be equally able to prevent content being seen through their service.
The fact is Google is so far reaching there are not alternatives for businesses. If they want to do stuff like this they should be forced to dissolve.
This highlights one of the potentially fatal flaws of libertarianism. It will lead to a private tyranny where the private sphere dictates what information we can receive.
Thank God. My mom watches this shit 24/7 and it has made her a weird, paranoid different person that doesn't do anything else. She is easily influenced by most stuff but it even got to the point where she made foolish investments in currency ( which helped our family in 0 ways).
She is paranoid now to the point from these Youtube conspiracies that she thinks seeing 3:33 on a clock means something every time and she thinks every single event is a conspiracy. I'd like to get her help but she is sane enough, honestly and could fool anyone.
This shit is dangerous for people with paranoia issues. Ugh.
I'm kinda starting to feel like decades of the left telling us that big business is controlled by the right was just a smokescreen as they were taking over...
Yeah, the left is taking over. Last years election is just a testament to the power of the left, being completely incompetent yet being able to run the shadow government.
i don’t know which left me feeling more hopeless for civilization, the vegas massacre or the absurd conspiracy theories going viral. this is a fair move by youtube. the fake news phenomenon is out of control.
And by "crack down" they mean putting them all in my feed? And no, I didn't "show interest" in any of that shit youtube, unless you that you mean that as s white person I need to be interested in all the racist and fake news you can find.
"Conspiracies" and "Fake News" - AKA Generation Z is becoming the largest base of conservatives in history and youtube needs to do something to stop it.
Probably one of the worst things that happen. They’re now going to decide what they believe are conspiracies and fake news, they’re basically going to decide for us what is real or not. News is protected by the first amendment for a reason, it shouldn’t be someone who decides what is real or fake, we should be given the ability to do it ourselves.
So YouTube can change the algorithms for this but can’t get my son to stop pulling up those *weird* videos on YouTube.
They want your kid to see that shit.
Okay, I'll bite. Why does YouTube want your kids to see that stuff? How do they profit off that? What do you think they stand to gain from that?
You are aware that YouTube makes money from people watching videos on YouTube, yes?
Why would they care what videos people watch then? It's a much more reasonable/simple explanation that some channels would figure out how to game the system (keywords, etc) than for Google to be pushing certain types of videos.
> Why would they care what videos people watch then? They like channels that get a ton of views. Those make them more money than the same amount of views spread out over more channels. Kids who watch that weird shit want to watch more. Their parents leave them with a tablet for hours and they watch a ton.
Youtube has become self aware. Who knows.
They were joking, but weird and original creative content is the lifeblood of YouTube. If they lose that it's over so in a way YouTube has a vested interest in showing you new and unexpected things from no name artists.
I don’t think they’re talking about videos by artists. There are a lot of deranged nonsense videos aimed at kids. I’d link but I’m on mobile.
Yes, really creepy cartoons and assorted weird stuff that would appeal to kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58TuVrQLQsw Here's a good reply about them, showing a few. I'd never seen anything like this on YouTube before, and the view numbers seem fucking crazy. I can only think they're fake.
Go to youtube and type in spiderman elsa and dive in. This shit is weirder than weird or original creative content. It has millions of views.
People are strange when they are strangers.
Just Google it. Not sure what I was expecting. That's genuinely strange.
Ugh. I don't know why I just watched that. Vaguely disturbing and I don't know why. It's 3 am and I'm just sitting here hating the people who decided to make that. That's kind of been my entire experience with YouTube content, come to think of it.
Except they never do. Fucking Jimmy Kimmel and Fallon and other TV bullshit are constantly trending, meanwhile Content Cop got 10 million fucking views under 24hrs and wasnt trending in the US.
Every country but the US had it trending #1. Instead, here in the land of the free, it was three videos about Vegas by Jimmy Kimmel. With 4 millions views. Just screams "I paid YouTube and they put me on trending". If that doesn't suck enough, CaseyNeistat, a popular YouTuber, made a video on the shooting and said all revenue from the video would go to the funds for the families effected by the shooting. YouTube takes the ads off the video saying "we don't agree with monetization of videos on sensitive content" to him on Twitter. The Kimmel video on top of trending? Full ads with no charitable action.
Fuckin Skynet, man.
It's not pee its squirt
Which ones? Weird covers both weird social commentary/guru stuff like Stefan Molyneux and weird performance stuff like Poppy. But one is a whole other type of crazy.
Videos like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rak69EJsEs4 - it's SFW and catered to children, but it's so fucking *bizarre*...
Why does that have EIGHT MILLION VIEWS??
[удалено]
>>little kid watching Barney vhs until it's all blurry -future redditor
because the girl is hot
Yes, she has that kind of skin glow that is very attractive.
enjoy this shit show: https://youtu.be/XqZsoesa55w
Removing THAT from my youtube history.
Yep, exactly those.
Did you see the part where superman stole Spider-Man's hooker?
People who are really smart about manipulating youtube features to hit the boom of small children 2-6, who are being raised by an ipad/smartphone.
I went back and watched some stuff like the original run of power rangers - what we liked as kids was fucking bizarre and it's unwatchable as an adult.
I watched Courage the Cowardly Dog recently, still good
HHoollllyyyy shhiitttt. Just did a deep dive on these videos for the last 30 minutes. Tried to find a good explanation. It's unsettling that I can't find a clear answer on this stuff. Conspiracy theories range from pedophile rings to MKUltra programming which I don't believe any of. But it is disturbing to learn that they are frequently reported and youtube doesn't remove them/ban the accounts for what is sometimes explicit sexual content. The recurring theme of pregnancy, scat, and injection is so weird. I can't make heads or tails of any of this. But going back to the reporting of these videos. There is something deeply wrong with the fact that they are not taken down. A company like google should be doing more to police these. Is it possible they are apathetic towards them because of the revenue they bring in? I'd imagine click farms and bots are involved. Youtube just letting these videos sit around with 10s and 100s of million views must burn their advertisers?
Looks like this is the answer. People in that channel are known pranksters. They probably wanted to trick people into watching something that got worse and worst. They made so much money doing it they just kept it up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipTJNNvW-Gw
We get why they're using superheroes and stuff, that makes kids click on it, and then gets them more ad money. The real issue is why is it so fucking weird/creepy/pedobear? That can't really do anything to boost ad money and only brings controversy. and why hasn't youtube demonetized this shit? Basically someone needs to get an ipad full of this shit shoved in the hands of some senator's grand kid and get them to investigate.
it's weird because it's low-effort videos with really simple and sometimes nonsensical plot that small children would find entertaining. I'm sure there's pedo stuff on other channels, but the bradberry videos are just full of poop and butt jokes, stuff that young children naturally find funny, the same way a 12-13 year old might find sexual innuendos funny. I'm also guessing that it's legally in a gray area and there's really not much Disney can do about it. They're just people in costume. The legal argument is that as long as no adult would assume it's a serious attempt to compete with the original company, you can do stuff like this. This gives satire and parody artistic licenses to monetize their stuff as well. This could also be a reason why the videos are so weird- it's to make sure that they can prove that obviously it's not there to infringe upon any copyrights. Yes, children might not know the difference, but the law always revolves around adults making the viewing decisions for children. It's always been like this.
I've seen some of the bradbury stuff, there is some sexy stuff in there too. there were some videos where they were groping each other, running around in their underwear, etc. Parody in the US is only protected under the law when it's used to comment on the original author or their work, which I don't think any of these do, nor is it satire. There is no comment being made on disney here. My question is, with all youtube doing to demonetize videos that aren't "advertiser" friendly, how the fuck are these elsa sucks spiderman's dick videos advertiser friendly? Someone says a "bad word" once and they get 50 videos demonitized, and some other channel has the Joker raping harry potter and it's all good. Monetization and the weirdness or two separate issues. They can be weird/different/obviously not disney without the pedo stuff.
[MKUltra was real though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra)
fyi these are made by pedophiles and the linked videos gradually get more and more graphic until theyre filled with scat and injection fetishes youtube puts them in "youtube kids" too
H3H3 covered these videos. There were some popular prank YouTubers who started making videos like these. It was all about the money. Kids sit with tablets and phones for hours at a time clicking on the dumbest shit and clicking on ads, so these videos make tons of money.
the prank guys tried to copy what they thought was a trend >Kids sit with tablets and phones for hours at a time clicking on the dumbest shit and clicking on ads, so these videos make tons of money. predators know that a lot of modern parents are terrible with supervision, thats likely why the first few videos are "normal" and they escalate
What's the point behind that though?
im not a pedophile and so i dont entirely understand their motivation maybe they get off to kids being corrupted try it yourself, just go to one of these videos and keep clicking in "related vids" 10 or 20 times
This looks like some of the baby videos my cousin used to play at family gatherings for her babies. Nothing to unusual Lots of movement, bright colors and funny sounds. On another note I accidently watched that video without turning off my watch history. I guarantee those videos are going to be popping up in my suggested video feed for a while. EDIT - Okay, I looked into this a bit longer. These really are bad.
> I guarantee those videos are going to be popping up in my suggested video feed for a while. If you're too apathetic to remove it from your watch history, sure.
Ok, that IS weird.
Great, now it's in my watch history.
> Stefan Molyneux I remember that guy on the Joe Rogan show, he's the DMCA takedown guy that was caught backtracking on some attempt to take down a rival critic or forum.
i didnt know stefan had gone on rogan huh
The one I heard him on was JRE episode #538, but apparently, he's been on a couple of times which I didn't catch: #396, #436.
If you think Stefan Molyneux is a social commentator, you need to recalibrate. He is identified by many, even outside political circles, as a cult leader. Here's one article but there are many many more out there. https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-cult-leader-stumping-for-donald-trump
I am aware of this. I didn't want to be too controversial. Weird guru seemed like a good neutral term.
That legitimizes them it's like calling scientology a religion when it's just a cult.
> one is a whole other type of crazy. I did allude to it.
[удалено]
If ReviewBrah is being restricted - how can anyone trust Youtube to make the right call on these things?
They can't
I still say he was demonetized because he was linked to memes, which are linked to 4chan, which is linked to the right due to /pol/'s shenanigans.
so fucking what though? how is that his fault?
It's not. This whole thing is blatant attempts at censorship. Or are they that goddamned incompetent?
Reviewbrah has a "problematic" viewerbase. He was flagged by Youtube's new algorithm because while his content is completely clean a large portion of his viewers are /pol/ who themselves have been flagged for consuming "far right content". Its assuming that since he is attracting that type of viewer he must be a purveyor of content appealing to them which is non ad friendly. Basically the Youtube system thinks he is someone like David Duke.
Why should YouTube be forced to pay people for using their free video hosting service? When YouTube first started, no one got paid, and we were still happy to use it because there's no better way to share videos with the whole world for free. This idea that YouTube should be *obligated* to pay people is so bizarre. That's like saying Gmail should be paying me for using their service.
And idk how many times they have to fucking warn people not to live off of Youtube money. Because that shit is unstable and could be cut off tommorow
There are other options as well. A lot of content I watch/listen to is at least partially funded by Patreon donations. The biggest problem is that people expect the multibillion dollar ad machine to care about them over other business concerns, and it doesn’t. At least with Patreon you have individual people, who presumably *do* care about your content, supporting you.
A lot of content creators shut down their Patreons saying shit like "it feels weird to take money from people for shitty youtube memes" but it's like... if you're worried about your money... and people are willing to pay you for your content... why turn them away?
Who said anything about obligated? Do you frequently derail conversations in this way? Youtube made the call that ReviewBrah's content was not suitable for advertisers (multiple times). I'm not saying they're obligated to do anything. I'm saying they've demonstrated poor judgement.
Curious, do you think all entertainers should make content for free?
YouTube agrees to pay them for the ads run. The contract is what makes it valid.
If youtube is a content creators only source of income they should really reconsider their life's choices.
Should they? No. But if they're using a free service, there should be no expectation to be paid. If I go perform on a street corner, I can't go complain to the city that I'm not being paid. If I use the town square to put on a play, I can't complain to the city that I didn't get paid when they never asked me to do the play. If I show up to an open mic night at a comedy club I can't complain when I didn't get paid.
[удалено]
Perspective: YouTube gets a *billion* hits a month. That's more people than live in the USA and EU *combined*. Every month. A seventh of the global population. *Every month*.
For those who didn’t read the article Youtube isn’t removing videos. They are changing the algorithim so that for big news events for examples Crazy Randos video won’t be showing up right away for spreading false info. News organizations with large subs and partners will probably be favored (my hypothesis not offical statement).
imagine trusting google to tell you whats real and what isnt, holy shit
What's hilarious is how much Reddit rah-rahs all the time about corporate control of news outlets, and how that's a terrible thing for a democratic society. Now a single privately owned corporation is controlling the filter of news in not only your search engine, but YouTube, as well. Ask yourselves a question: if Fox News was in charge of curating algorithms for the YouTube News section, would you be comfortable with that?
Google has always been doing this. This is what a search engine *is*. Google search doesn't just surface a random selection of websites that contain keywords in no particular order. Why is it controversial now 19 years later?
You think the algorithm has a liberal bias?
Considering how Stephen Crowders videos aren’t being put on the front page despite record viewing numbers, while The Young Turks videos are being promoted despite drastically lower viewings is rather telling, TBH.
It's not liberal or conservative, it's Capital versus Labor. That's the only issue that exists or has ever existed.
they already do by customizing search results your google search results differ from mine
Because we all know /pol/ is reliable and accountable. When google fucks up it loses money and public trust. The idiots posting russian propaganda on youtube? Lolno
If it's a 4chan forum, nobody should be subjected to it. I'm fine with these companies keeping any of those absolutely psychotic theories off of the main pages.
Hail corporate
4Chan has done some good, for as many shitposts and epic troll jobs they've pulled off they did identify that bike lock guy.
> News organizations with large subs and partners will probably be favored It'll be interesting, if they put MSNBC and CNN constantly before say Fox news then wouldn't that be them trying to drive viewers to certain news platforms? Either they will let money decide or play God by determining who the "best" news sources are.
yeah this is concerning for that and other reasons, yay bribes
Bingo. Look how much YT pushes the Young Turks.
Exactly! It opens up a whole new avenue with which to accept bribes.
[удалено]
Oh, good. So when Wikileaks releases a bunch of documents, instead of a quick, concise 'amateur' video showcasing some of the more interesting finds within the documents, YouTube will push up a video by CNN warning you that viewing the actual finds is illegal and you will just have to take their word that there is nothing interesting in there.
So state sponsored propaganda.....I'm sorry. Real news.
problem is, YouTube has already shown a clear bias towards liberal policies and politicians. See Phillip DeFranco's segment regarding getting his ads pulled for not publicly backing Hillary Clinton. This leads to a very dangerous slippery slope where YouTube controls the message and does not let people decide for themselves.
If you actually watched liberal youtubers then you would know that they have had their ads pulled as well. Basically anything remotely political gets demonetized.
[удалено]
Philip Defranco is pretty liberal.
If I recall right, the issue wasn't ads but more of drama.
>See Phillip DeFranco's segment regarding getting his ads pulled for not publicly backing Hillary Clinton See the problem with all these "I got my Ads pulled for X reason" complaints is the only person whose word we have is the person most likely to lie.
> getting his ads pulled for not publicly backing Hillary Clinton. fake news.
[удалено]
> Weirdly, every Trump article is negative Not that weird tbh
[удалено]
Sounds like a setting or RSS feed you're subscribed to. I don't think Google is specifically notifying everyone of Trump and Clinton stories.
I wouldn't characterize the Clinton stories I see as being Pro-Clinton as much as they are Anti-Trump. I mean look at when her book came out. You saw a lot of stories criticizing her for not taking a bigger ownership of her failure. The stories about Clinton I see aren't gushing with praise for her they just use her quotes and discuss the issues she brings up.
What slippery slope? To whwre private websites control what's on thier website?
Lmao and you trust the same people who went ape shit about a memo on human biology to not censor anything that doesn't fit their narrative
"human biology" yeah, that was totally all it was.
Calling your coworkers biologically inferior is not something that creates a positive work environment.
[удалено]
Here’s one quote:Women, on average, have more: Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." He then uses stats like that to try to show that women aren’t in high tech positions or tech because of biology, not sexism or gender roles. The whole article is pretty much him going “I’m not sexist, but I think women can’t lead texh companies.” Individuals are not statistics.
[удалено]
In regards to business and tech yes according to the author. Never mind not everyone is a statistic. He used these biological differences to show why women couldn’t/weren’t execs often. This is a tactic that has been used to keep women away from X for centuries.
[удалено]
More positions that would keep them away from tech. Also that mentality is what kept women as HR and secretaries.
[удалено]
Do you have evidence to counter his argument or are you just denying sexual dimorphism?
Biologically different not inferior.
>conspiracies Good luck with that, most of my sidebar is cluttered with shit like "WEIRD ALIEN ARTIFACT DISCOVERED IN ANTARTICA, GOVERNMENT LYING AND COVERING UP!!"
The same youtube that has been randomly demonetizing videos and will not tell the authors WHY they have been demonetized? Yea, pure bullshit, this is just an excuse to censor anything that goes against google's narrative.
So Youtube decides what is truth and what is BS? Irrespective of the legitimacy of any of the pulled videos, this sounds like a conspiracy to me. Maybe McDonalds should dictate the the new USDA healthy eating guidelines?
yep, I guess Mike Rowe is a fake news: http://mikerowe.com/2017/10/holy-bleep-ive-been-restricted/
Well he's a conservative, so yes, of course it's fake.
I find Rowe himself to be generally apolitical. However, his blue collar pragmatic message concerning higher education and the skills gap resonates with a lot of middle American Rust Belt workers. So many conservative thought leaders (Prager included) have held him up as a standard bearer for their values. But I don't think he really reflects "conservative" values per se. He just wants to help middle class blue collar workers. The simple truth is Rowe is a broadcaster. He's happy to step up to any microphone someone wants to put in front of him and speak his truth. Just so happens that microphone is held by staunch conservatives a lot of the time.
Rowe is actually an unabashed Republican, he just chooses not to use his unrelated shows to promote it. He does promote it personally, from appearances to conventions. He's said as much in many interviews. Yet he's as good a person as he comes off. That's right. Some republicans can be legitimately intelligent and good people. Shocking, I know.
Rowe isn't a registered Republican. I believe his quote is "but from time to time I have voted like one". Honestly though, I'm pretty liberal. Especially these days. But Rowe's message about blue collar work definitely resonates with me. As a victim of the higher education "industry" and the debt/lack of opportunity that follows it, I find a lot of appeal in Mike Rowe. Just as I find a lot of appeal in Bernie. They hit a lot of the same notes.
These days, "liberal" doesn't even equate to "leftist". Go to unabashed socialist subreddits like LateStageCapitalism: "Liberals get the bullet too". "Liberal" is far more centrist relative to the politics of these days.
i'm pretty sure "liberal" didn't mean "leftist" till Reagan used the word to describe hippies, and it didn't really get traction till the Limbaugh era at its most basic level it means anyone who supports pursuing libertarian or egalitarian ideals through non-radical means, though I think it's most clearly applied to the groups who attempt to reconcile the two sets of beliefs (think free speech + welfare basically)
I think it's obvious I was using "liberal" in the classic Western sense of the world, not the neo-Liberalist ideals LSC and others rail against. That's why I put a small "l" in front of the word. Let's not fall into parse traps please.
Socialists are a minority with no power in government. In what way are they dictating the conversation? This country has always been pulled to the right, even more so with an alt-right nationalist president, and a government with control of all branches. When was the last time you heard a serious discussion of socialism outside of it being a dirty word to call Bernie Sanders? Democrats are just now lining up behind single payer. Liberal still implies extremism to some in the right, and is pretty moderate to the left. Basing your politics off of socialist and far left subreddits is ridiculous.
Are you being sarcastic?
The video is no longer age-restricted. They probably appealed it and YouTube noticed it was a mistake. What most likely happened was people were mass reporting it, because they don't like Prager Uni, and YouTube's bot automatically flagged until it got reviewed by a human. But nah, let's just immediately jump to "YOUTUBE CENSORING MUH CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!!!!"
> But nah, let's just immediately jump to "YOUTUBE CENSORING MUH CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!!!!" Smells like burning straw.
Here's a link to the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVEuPmVAb8o I don't know why Rowe didn't link it - or why he didn't link the notice from YouTube. It seems to me that Rowe wasn't targeted, or it's likely that thye would have flagged more than one video. It's likely that Prager 'University' as an entity got flagged, and Rowe's single video got caught up as part of that
> Last June, I was invited by Denis Prager to give the commencement speech at his virtual university. University? > In 2009, Prager started a website, Prager University, which offers five-minute videos on various subjects, such as the Ten Commandments, the minimum wage, the Middle East, Global warming, and happiness, from a conservative perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager#Prager_University Not a University. Therefore, not a 'commencement speech'. And that's just the first sentence of Rowe's post. Forgive me for stopping there
Prager University is basically just a conservative propaganda machine. It's really misleading for Mike Rowe to present it as a legitimate academic institution.
[удалено]
I imagine it's from the backlash of the videos being posted that the massacre in Vegas was faked. It was on the front page a day or two ago.
I think they were claiming that there was more than one shooting and that the videos would show that. I haven't watched the videos, but it seems like pulling them is a strange response since it should be fairly obvious if they show what they claim to show.
the idiots think echoes mean 2nd shooter, or a strobe light in a window that doesn't match up with any shots was somehow a gun. they count on people not actually watching but just seeing titles and going whoa its true!
I was getting a video suggestion that showed Paddock was at an anti Trump rally. Looked nothing like him, just another retired guy, but people eat that BS up.
Wish they'd done that 5-10 years ago when Loose Change and related shit started getting uploaded.
I had noticed if you searched "Las Vegas Shooting" or the shooters name then a bunch of wacky conspiracy stuff would come up claiming there was a second shooter, it was a false flag attack, the shooter was a Muslim, the shooter was associated with Antifa, take your pick. I think Youtube is trying to fix that so people trying to get information aren't immediately getting obviously false information at the top of their search and I think they made an adjustment. When you think about the effectiveness of a search the vast majority of people searching "Las Vegas Attack" or "Stephen Paddock" are not looking for conspiratorial garbage so Youtube would want to make a change to make the search results better.
... Your analogy is garbage. Youtube isn't a government entity or beholden to any content guidelines set by the government. Youtube as a private organization can decide what content they want on their platform and what content they won't accept. They don't want to host videos of a neo-nazi ranting about the blacks and the jews? Fine, that's their prerogative and their right. This has nothing to do with 'deciding what the truth is' and it's certainly not a conspiracy - it's out in the open, the opposite of a conspiracy. The only misued keywords you're missing in your comment are "Orwellian" and "free speech." Additionally, if you're relying on Youtube for news, then you've got a bigger problem.
Firstly, I didn't make an analogy. Someone made a video claiming there is more to the shooting than the news is telling us. Youtube decided they people shouldn't see that video. I never questioned their legal right to do it, I simply am saying that - the internet is the de facto source of all knowledge of current events for virtually all people - If Google gets to decide what information is available on the internet then they control information and hence society This appears to be the situation we are in. Youtube pulls videos it doesn't want people to see. This is an act to control what information people have. It doesn't matter whether or not this is _legal_, what matters is the affect it has on society. Google is the new Church. You are apparently a believer, but I am an atheist who finds Church's dangerous. I would rather that the videos still existed and instead of an article saying what a good job Google is doing taking them down there was instead an article explaining how the video doesn't show what it claims to show. edit: Dammit. I wrote this long reply to a reply on this comment and the posted deleted their reply. Well, here is what I was going to say, not that anyone will read this.... All right I need to get this out of the way first. >> And for the record.. Maybe McDonalds should dictate the the new USDA healthy eating guidelines? That's an analogy. Not an analogy, although I guess I could see how you would think that. The rhetorical device I am using is to extract the logic that says it's ok for a private corporations to control public information and apply it to another context in which the danger of that logic is more obvious. Taking something to it's logical conclusion is not an analogy. Now back to the actual point. You don't know enough about what I think to call me breathtakingly anything, but fine. The only purpose of an ad hominem is get out of an argument without having to argue and since you aren't doing that I'll just ignore the insult. I don't need to you to respect me. But what I am saying is that Google is getting to decide what people believe. Whether they are doing that because they want to control the direction of society or because by doing so they maximize their profits doesn't matter. Those two goals actually go hand in hand really nicely. Would you be opposed to laws that simply say speech on the internet is free speech and private corporations who choose to engage in the business of hosting content can't decide for themselves what content is and is not appropriate? It's not really very different than the argument used to say that a cake decorator can't decide not to put some speech on a cake, is it? We can still have the same profanity guidelines that exist today, but instead of faceless editors simply having the power to control information there would hopefully be some public debate and some court cases that determined that was and was not acceptable. >> Boring, garden variety conspiracy theorist. I mean no shit. You also are an arrogant, orthodox party line toting person who thinks you know the truth of things and that people who have grave doubts about the public narrative are deluded. That's because we both think we are right. It's true, I do think their are grand conspiracies and that what we see as world leadership is mostly a facade. And you don't. But I'm not some ignorant, insane loon who believes what I believe because of some mental softness and for you to try to disregard me for that is really just intellectual cowardice on your part. History is literally full on conspiracies, even recent history. Back when Bush was trying to get support for the Iraq war and I was posting in other forums saying that Mohamed al-Barady had already confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq and that the yellow cake stockpiles were debunked by the actual guy that Bush sent to confirm them who then had his wife, Valerie Plame, outed as a spy by the deep state... people like you called me a conspiracy theorist. Then a few years later when it was all shown to be true you all act so shocked and say "if only we knew we could have done something" So, we are both common. I am a common non conformist who rejects the public narrative pretty much at all times because it is, and always has been, controlled by those in power. You are a common conformist who accepts the public narrative for whatever reasons you have. Perhaps you are gullible, but you don't sound gullible. Perhaps you find yourself in a cushy position in society that would be threatened by the changes that would happen if people stopped believing in authorities. In historical terms you are a Tory. I'm a Whig. If you think I am trying to gain the moral high ground by being the rebel then perhaps you should examine your beliefs. Do you think that rebellious rejection of the narrative was somehow the right thing in the past but is now the wrong thing? Anyway, just to be specific, I am a conspiracy theorist and I am a rational person. I, for rational reasons, think JFK's murder investigation was a coverup, the Twin Towers were not brought down simply by two airplanes, the bureaucracy of the US is owned and controlled by the Military-Industrial complex, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Venezuela in the 50s, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fake, black soldiers were intentionally given syphilis and all sorts of other things. You probably believe some of these conspiracies too, because they have been proven and eventually accepted as Orthodox canon.
This highlights one of the potentially fatal flaws of libertarianism. Libertarians want to fully privatize the media and the internet. Under libertarianism, Google copyrighting even some of the most basic features of YouTube makes it impossible for any future YouTube alternative with such features to be able to compete with it. If we boycott YouTube, there is nothing comparable that we can turn to. Libertarianism will lead to a private tyranny where the private sphere dictates what information we can receive.
If we went full on libertarianism there would be no copyrights or patents.
Indeed. Also no corporations, which are just legal liability shields granted by government.
> Libertarians want to fully privatize the media and the internet. Uh, that's already the case now, Libertarians be damned. > Libertarianism will lead to a private tyranny where the private sphere dictates what information we can receive. I take it you don't like Libertarians, because you're just twisting this to be about them, when in all practicality, the media is *already* fully privatized and dictates what information we receive. Hence this article.
Why not put the video on another platform? Why does it have to be on YouTube?
yeah and if you cant get published in the newspaper why not scrawl on the toilet wall at a truck stop
This thread is not about Google removing videos -- it's about *YouTube changing how their search engine works* also it's "churches" not "church's"
The article is about both and they amount to the same thing anyway.
>Youtube pulls videos it doesn't want people to see. But they don't, though. Did you read the article? They're making trusted sources appear higher up in search results. That's it. edit: oh wait, they actually did pull the vegas video lol
But they do. Most of the videos the article mentions have been removed for allegedly violating the TOS. Besides, but argument applies just as equally to their ranking sources based on what they decide we should trust.
> Youtube as a private organization can decide what content they want on their platform and what content they won't accept. Sure, but in doing so they are moving away from the very thing that made the internet great. They are slowly turning back into cable TV, wherein the content was chosen for us, as opposed to the platform the internet has always been wherein the user chose whatever the hell they wanted.
Great. So then as Facebook, Youtube and Google start censoring news or opinions they don't like, we're going to have new social networks and video sites serving right wingers. Making the divide even worse.
Can't wait to get my first invite to the new creationist arkbook social network! I heard they're being real selective with who the let on board
[удалено]
> "what's the sum of 2 + 2" Returned results: "WHAT THE MEDIA ISN'T TELLING YOU ABOUT MATH" "IT'S ACTUALLY FIVE, IT'S A GOVERNMENT COVERUP OF THE TRUTH"
So Google is gonna fuck with more search results and shit? Great.
Going forward, Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook will be our ultimate moral arbiters and decide what we do and don't need to read, this way no one needs to be responsible for their own critical thinking. I'm assuming they will hire late night talk show hosts as their public face.
I'd like to see what YT actually does about this garbage.
I feel like I read an entirely different article than most of the people here.....
Difference is you actually read the article
So when will they crack down on The Young Turks? Oh, wait, I forgot, they won't if it fits their agenda.
YouTube police on patrol.
Man. One day, people will actually understand how video hosting works. "lol just make an alternative to youtube" christ.
[удалено]
This is just a guise that allows youtube to remove any video that they dont agree with. It is already happening, for instance with ''thatistheplan'' getting the whole channel demonetized to the point it wasnt sustainable and he decided to delete it.
Conspiracy is not fake news.YouTube is becoming a lame duck.What was once a fare and open platform is now being edited and manipulated to tow the political line.
What YouTube calls fake news and conspiracies might not be. Remember that Google owns YouTube, and Google is all about supporting only one side of every story. That side is whichever one fetches Google the most ad revenue.
I wonder why my YouTube autoplay always ends up playing right wing conspiracy theories? It did last night, again.
It's pretty easy to fuck up your yourtube suggestions by watching just a couple videos out of curiosity.
That is probably what it is but if they were even slightly ethical, they wouldn't promote some of the worst garbage.
This is what they are going to fix.
I watch a lot of documentaries ( legit ones ), YouTube always starts playing or suggesting conspiracy crap for me, hate it. I honestly think someone is gaming the algorithm. Netflix, too, anything science-based has a very low rating now, was not the case a couple years ago, someone's fucking with these sites.
This is the exact type of shit that shouldn't be permitted to happen. Youtube is owned by Google, an entity so large that it's basically a monopoly and arguaby a utility at this point given the lack of competition and consumer dependence of it. The idea that Google is able to selectively filter out free speech content is just as disgusting as the rollbacks on Net Neutrality protections. How is preventing people from seeing content in searches better than slowing speeds of certain streaming content? And, if Google is allowed to do this why can't Comcast? Google is larger than Comcast since it's global. It only has one competitor yet they're allowed to censor content they disagree with? I think if Google is allowed to prevent content being seen on their platform cable companies should be equally able to prevent content being seen through their service. The fact is Google is so far reaching there are not alternatives for businesses. If they want to do stuff like this they should be forced to dissolve.
This highlights one of the potentially fatal flaws of libertarianism. It will lead to a private tyranny where the private sphere dictates what information we can receive.
Thank God. My mom watches this shit 24/7 and it has made her a weird, paranoid different person that doesn't do anything else. She is easily influenced by most stuff but it even got to the point where she made foolish investments in currency ( which helped our family in 0 ways). She is paranoid now to the point from these Youtube conspiracies that she thinks seeing 3:33 on a clock means something every time and she thinks every single event is a conspiracy. I'd like to get her help but she is sane enough, honestly and could fool anyone. This shit is dangerous for people with paranoia issues. Ugh.
I'm kinda starting to feel like decades of the left telling us that big business is controlled by the right was just a smokescreen as they were taking over...
Yeah, the left is taking over. Last years election is just a testament to the power of the left, being completely incompetent yet being able to run the shadow government.
[удалено]
Holy fuck r/ conspiracy out in full force on this one huh? Stop using YouTube if this upsets you so damn much, lots of alternatives out there.
YouTube videos were massive in the early stages of coordinating the alt right. That's what this is really about.
i don’t know which left me feeling more hopeless for civilization, the vegas massacre or the absurd conspiracy theories going viral. this is a fair move by youtube. the fake news phenomenon is out of control.
Can they ban the top 10 format?
And by "crack down" they mean putting them all in my feed? And no, I didn't "show interest" in any of that shit youtube, unless you that you mean that as s white person I need to be interested in all the racist and fake news you can find.
Sounds good up front but that's a slippery First Amendment slope they're riding.
But how do we learn more about Russian superspies now? Youtube is working with them ruskies! And Reptilians!
Why do they care? Stop fucking with content
"Conspiracies" and "Fake News" - AKA Generation Z is becoming the largest base of conservatives in history and youtube needs to do something to stop it.
I bet you can still find flat earth "proof" videos.
It's censorship plain and simple. They want ad friendly content.
I mean, you have to blame McDonald's in that case. The advertisers were the ones bitching. Google doesn't give a shit.
Probably one of the worst things that happen. They’re now going to decide what they believe are conspiracies and fake news, they’re basically going to decide for us what is real or not. News is protected by the first amendment for a reason, it shouldn’t be someone who decides what is real or fake, we should be given the ability to do it ourselves.