Youtube's Shifting Algorithms Hurt Independent Media

If you can't tell by now this isn't about advertisers being shown on Isis beheading videos, it's a media warfare as more people turn to their computer to random channels for their news, information, and discussions instead of watching Fox & Friends and other stupid mainstream TV shows.

I do this myself, I find Phillip DeFranco's channel to be an excellent and unbiased news source. He gives you the story in the most unbiased way, and then he gives his personal opinion after the fact. He has experienced similar loss of ad revenue because he talks about "sensitive" topics... which is simply daily news (Trump news, crime news, etc...)
 
Actually, we aren't overreacting. In the last few weeks I've seen virtually every youtube content creator that I watch every day get affected by this. And no, most of the channels are not purely about guns or politics. Most of it is industrial, teaching or diy stuff. Say the wrong word, mention a gun, do a project that is roundabout related to a gun, even once, several years ago and their whole channel gets demonetized. Talk about hunting. No money. Mention your religious beliefs once in a while, wham. It's gotten insane. Most of this stuff is seriously wholesome content. But they are marking almost all of it as "not family friendly."

But they'll still show the latest music video where everyone is nearly having sex on camera, or the lyrics are just nasty.

It's obviously more than simple ad revenue control.
 
Sonicks said:
YouTube is not a Government funded company therefore it has no obligation to support or not support independent media. It's not like they are taking down videos they are trying to censor. Let's not get it mixed up here. YouTube simply isn't funding content it doesn't want to fund anymore (for whatever vague reason).

I'm not defending YouTube since their Ad Revenue practices are shady, at best, but I also don't agree with the sentiment that they are censoring anybody. I do feel bad for the content creators that suddenly lost their revenue though because, again, I feel like YouTube is being more than shady in their practices here when it comes to who and how it shares its Ad revenue with.

If you've got a camera and an internet connection you can still get your message across on YouTube. They just won't pay you for it if they don't want to.
Click to expand...

This is what people need to focus on. Private companies are not obligated to purchase or fund media campaigns or art. No person or entity should be obligated to fund media or art.

One of the problems is the advertisers are being short sighted, because targeted adds are better than blanket ads. They have a better chance at letting some one know about your product that may be interested. And even I have purchased product from or clicked on a targeted add to learn more, I can't recall ever doing that from a blanket ad. Are viewers really associating the advertisement with the video they were watching? Some videos have ads embedded by sponsors. Those ads next to the shows you watch are blanket ads they have no idea what you are interested in, or have looked at.

If a person gives the impression that they are looking for or buying Cola product through their search history and then goes and watches extreme political videos on YouTube. It is not making a connection between the video and the product. YouTube is making the connection from the viewer to the ad and the video is just an incentive for the viewer to watch the ad. As a viewer, I have never made the connection that the add I see is connected to the video. I know that the add I am seeing is most likely because of my search behavior on google.
 
Actually the ad revenue is back up by now on most channels to a decent level. It was only for a short transitional period where ad income for videos dropped to almost zero.Youtube even said themselves that there might be a few days off while they tune their algorithms.

Of course they're not so vocal about that little fact. Since they already convinced many of their viewers to support them on patreon. Just because the ad revenue is back they don't want to stop that gravy train.
 
Long time lurker. Made an account to maybe win some hardware.

I desperately try to avoid these kinds of conversations; but I'm literally blown away by the reaction to this. It's not censorship. You don't have a right to use someone else's service to do what ever you want AND get paid for it. You in fact don't have a right to either. The videos are still up, still watchable, and still uploadable. Youtube would be well within their rights to exclude whatever content they want. They're a company, spending vast sums of money running a service. It's theirs to use how they see fit, and yours to choose if you'd like to use it within those parameters. The problem is that people believe the consumption of information should be free. You watch someone a lot and value the service they provide? Want them to be independent of external shareholders? How about you pay to make sure that can continue in their independence. Someone's paying them, if it's not you, you don't get a say.

This claim of censorship is completely baffling. Like the first amendment: you have a right to say crazy shit, but you don't have a right to be heard. And you certainly don't have a right to have someone come and erect a stage and sound system on their property to broadcast your voice at their expense, and then pay you for it.
 
Advil said:
Actually, we aren't overreacting. In the last few weeks I've seen virtually every youtube content creator that I watch every day get affected by this. And no, most of the channels are not purely about guns or politics. Most of it is industrial, teaching or diy stuff. Say the wrong word, mention a gun, do a project that is roundabout related to a gun, even once, several years ago and their whole channel gets demonetized. Talk about hunting. No money. Mention your religious beliefs once in a while, wham. It's gotten insane. Most of this stuff is seriously wholesome content. But they are marking almost all of it as "not family friendly."

But they'll still show the latest music video where everyone is nearly having sex on camera, or the lyrics are just nasty.

It's obviously more than simple ad revenue control.
Click to expand...
Yeah but crybabies who do "independent news" are clearly being targeted!

Really it's every channel that isn't essentially 90% family friendly.

Essentially youtube is pulling blanket ads off any video that would throw up any kind of flag that could offend any remaining sponsors on the platform.
 
lilbabycat said:
1. I fully believe google / youtube's masterminds are using their power to skew results for their own political reasons, and all I ask is that they admit it instead of lying to my face.
Click to expand...

I dont doubt this for a second. Conservatives are slaughtering liberals in the youtube space. Something had to be done about it.
 
rudedog said:
If I where them, I would go out and rent or buy my own servers with a good connection and great bandwidth... oh that costs money? As other say, don't build your business on top of others, than complain. More and more people want something for nothing.
Click to expand...

FWIW, YouTube's bandwidth costs are a fraction what it would cost us mere mortals thanks to Google's peering setups. It's not unlike Standard Oil being able to sustain selling under cost for long enough to kill regional competition.
 
cageymaru said:
Google contractors were listing the Infowars website as low to medium for search results as far as trustworthiness of factual data goes which is blatant censorship.
Click to expand...

That may be censorship, but it's accurate to classify that website as low for factual data. As others have said, this is why Youtube Red can go fuck itself. A lot of the gun channels are the only things on Youtube I watch with regularity. Those channels have been demonetized on Youtube which has forced those content providers to try and seek other ways of sustaining their channels. I toyed with the idea of starting a firearms channel. I'm glad I didn't at this point.
 
The funny thing is I get firearm ads, conservative ads, and NRA ads all the time. If Google is still taking their money, I'm inclined to think its more of algorithms being unable to properly identify content.
 
MOS8580 said:
FWIW, YouTube's bandwidth costs are a fraction what it would cost us mere mortals thanks to Google's peering setups. It's not unlike Standard Oil being able to sustain selling under cost for long enough to kill regional competition.
Click to expand...

Uh no. It's quite unlike Standard Oil's Predatory pricing. YouTube invested in a large distribution system that through economies of scale greatly reduces it's current operation costs. It's still making money and running above cost. That is an extremely important distinction.
 
It's Googles platform, they can do as they wish, and if the people paying for the ads don't want it attached to a given video, that is also their choice. I think it is stupid on both parts and only hurts them, big time for Google, as those pushing out lots of new content make enough money to do it part or even full time, with this change they might close up shop or move to another streaming service they can survive on.

Myself, I don't like baked in ads by those making the content, as I pay for YT Red, so I skip all ads, having them built into the show ruins that ability. YT content creators though are now getting a taste of why other media are so biased or censored, it's about money and control.

MOS8580 said:
FWIW, YouTube's bandwidth costs are a fraction what it would cost us mere mortals thanks to Google's peering setups. It's not unlike Standard Oil being able to sustain selling under cost for long enough to kill regional competition.
Click to expand...

Standard Oil never had predatory pricing. It's amazing the things this gets brought up in and how much people think its true, media at it's finest.
 
buckrodger said:
Long time lurker. Made an account to maybe win some hardware.

I desperately try to avoid these kinds of conversations; but I'm literally blown away by the reaction to this. It's not censorship. You don't have a right to use someone else's service to do what ever you want AND get paid for it. You in fact don't have a right to either. The videos are still up, still watchable, and still uploadable. Youtube would be well within their rights to exclude whatever content they want. They're a company, spending vast sums of money running a service. It's theirs to use how they see fit, and yours to choose if you'd like to use it within those parameters. The problem is that people believe the consumption of information should be free. You watch someone a lot and value the service they provide? Want them to be independent of external shareholders? How about you pay to make sure that can continue in their independence. Someone's paying them, if it's not you, you don't get a say.

This claim of censorship is completely baffling. Like the first amendment: you have a right to say crazy shit, but you don't have a right to be heard. And you certainly don't have a right to have someone come and erect a stage and sound system on their property to broadcast your voice at their expense, and then pay you for it.
Click to expand...
Stop creating accounts with your logic and reason!

Remember the most extreme posts are from gents who believe every word that comes out of Alex Jones mouth no matter how asinine the sentences the combination of sounds he uses to make sentences may be...
 
BlueFireIce said:
Standard Oil never had predatory pricing. It's amazing the things this gets brought up in and how much people think its true, media at it's finest.
Click to expand...

McGee certainly didn't prove that. He did dissect how predatory pricing wouldn't work in practice, based on economic data for that market, and used it to conclude that Standard Oil didn't use it, and if they did, it didn't have the intended effect. He said "I am convinced that Standard did not systematically, if ever, use local price cutting in retailing, or anywhere else, to reduce competition." However the courts were not convinced, and neither am I. McGee's further conclusions are that predatory pricing doesn't ever work, as he believes the market will always balance long term. I don't believe this to be true. It assumes both perfect information, perfect actors, correct forecasting of things for non-coordinated parties, and discounts realities of cash-flows and opportunity costs (assumes all actors can cover all costs without missing opportunities with those expenditures). While extremely interesting and exceptional for the time, I don't think it's held up nearly as well.
 
Defunding of non mainstream streams. Where will the mass exodus from YT lead to?
 
buckrodger said:
McGee certainly didn't prove that. He did dissect how predatory pricing wouldn't work in practice, based on economic data for that market, and used it to conclude that Standard Oil didn't use it, and if they did, it didn't have the intended effect. He said "I am convinced that Standard did not systematically, if ever, use local price cutting in retailing, or anywhere else, to reduce competition." However the courts were not convinced, and neither am I. McGee's further conclusions are that predatory pricing doesn't ever work, as he believes the market will always balance long term. I don't believe this to be true. It assumes both perfect information, perfect actors, correct forecasting of things for non-coordinated parties, and discounts realities of cash-flows and opportunity costs (assumes all actors can cover all costs without missing opportunities with those expenditures). While extremely interesting and exceptional for the time, I don't think it's held up nearly as well.
Click to expand...

Standard oil had lower prices, through vertical integration, strategic warehouses and being efficient in production, oil and kerosene of the time was a very messy and wasteful process, his labs developed over 300 products from the waste, allowing for more money to be made per barrel even with lower costs along with using their own jobbers and not hiring outsiders. They did not sell below costs, despite what many people claim, no proof has ever existed, the courts also did not agree they used predatory pricing, the courts said that with 90% market share they COULD take advantage of predatory pricing, keep in mind by the time the case was brought before the court, Standard Oil had fallen behind as even more efficient companies had come along, at the time of the case Standard Oil had dropped to under 40% market share with 150 other competitors in the market.

As for "realities" and "cash-flows". The ruling was that Standard Oil was to cheap, yes, they wanted to break up the company because they were supplying goods CHEAPER than anyone else. This might raise an eye or two if they were an established massive monopoly, however when Standard Oil started it had almost no market share and NO financial ability to drop prices below cost to drive others out, the low prices from Standard Oil allowed it to become a normal commodity that anyone could afford, the time frame where Standard Oil entered the market to the time the case was started on them in prices: 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897, so by your logic starting from nothing without money, he was able to price below cost for over 28 years with the hope of some day raising prices to recover the losses over that time? Give me a break, by this time others were coming to market with even cheaper oil and kerosene, dropping Standard Oils market share, no examples exist they sold below cost and it would mean the others pushing them out of the market with even cheaper oil would also be selling WAY under cost, which is just not the case.

You keep saying that you "dont think" or "dont believe", when the proof we have only points to that being the case, yet you still refuse to believe it? If I may ask, why?
 
buckrodger said:
Long time lurker. Made an account to maybe win some hardware.

I desperately try to avoid these kinds of conversations; but I'm literally blown away by the reaction to this. It's not censorship. You don't have a right to use someone else's service to do what ever you want AND get paid for it. You in fact don't have a right to either. The videos are still up, still watchable, and still uploadable. Youtube would be well within their rights to exclude whatever content they want. They're a company, spending vast sums of money running a service. It's theirs to use how they see fit, and yours to choose if you'd like to use it within those parameters. The problem is that people believe the consumption of information should be free. You watch someone a lot and value the service they provide? Want them to be independent of external shareholders? How about you pay to make sure that can continue in their independence. Someone's paying them, if it's not you, you don't get a say.

This claim of censorship is completely baffling. Like the first amendment: you have a right to say crazy shit, but you don't have a right to be heard. And you certainly don't have a right to have someone come and erect a stage and sound system on their property to broadcast your voice at their expense, and then pay you for it.
Click to expand...
People completely forget that youtube is providing a hosting service for free. In some cases for thousands of videos, which would cost a hefty amount to host on your own, especially if you want it to be stable when millions of people view it.
 
Retronym said:
i havent looked around, but i imagine when it goes, it will be swift.
Click to expand...
It will go nowhere,

OH NO, Youtube demonetized two of my 143 videos, IT'S CENSORSHIP, it's an abusive relationship!

Give me a break, and stop whining. Other sites don't even offer monetization automatically. You need to plead to them and basically write an essay on why they should consider you as a partner.
 
M76 said:
People completely forget that youtube is providing a hosting service for free. In some cases for thousands of videos, which would cost a hefty amount to host on your own, especially if you want it to be stable when millions of people view it.
Click to expand...

They're getting the lion's share of ad revenue, not to mention free advertising for their own service, not to mention terabytes upon terabytes of user data. They are by far the benefactors in the exchange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
lilbabycat said:
They're getting the lion's share of ad revenue, not to mention free advertising for their own service, not to mention terabytes upon terabytes of user data. They are by far the benefactors in the exchange.
Click to expand...
Yes, so evil of them for making some ground rules for the free service they provide, where you can even make money. Try getting advertisers for your videos on your own. Everyone acts like youtube is literally doing nothing for the money they take.

Nobody would give a shit about your data without advertisers, and youtube brings the advertisers. Scorn all you want, but without youtube no content creator would be where they are now.
 
BlueFireIce said:
You keep saying that you "dont think" or "dont believe", when the proof we have only points to that being the case, yet you still refuse to believe it? If I may ask, why?
Click to expand...


1. It's not the "only" proof. You neglect to mention that Standard Oil (of Ohio) actually lost the original case in 1892. A timeline that is much more interesting to your pricing details.

2. A decline in price doesn't prove commoditization as the driving market factor. A quick glance at other economic competitors points out that the first electric street lights showed up in 1879 (in Ohio no less).

3. Declining prices doesn't in any way disprove market undercutting.

4. There can be no doubt that the vertical integration and product waste diversity was extremely significant in making Standard Oil and Rockefeller the richest man in America. But that also doesn't exclude predatory pricing.

5. You know that Standard Oil was just the incorporation, and he owned significant stake in local oil refining before Standard Oil right? Saying "starting from nothing without money" is 2 lies.

6. Predatory pricing isn't only on end consumer goods. You've done nothing to address his domination of interstate railway traffic at what was argued above normal market volume in the final anti-trust case.

7. The realities and cashflows were for consumers and competitors as market actors, and you've done nothing to address information flow nor forecasting on top of that.

8. You gave pricing but neglected to cite it's locality nor source. My understanding of the anti-trust case is that they refused to give account for locality costs instead of generalized.

Ultimately I reject your "proof" as being as definitive as you believe it is. I have data and economic theory to back up my point of view. I highly doubt this will be settled on a comment board of a tech website. I definitely agree that most people know the Standard Oil anti-trust case in extreme (and wrong) simplicity.
 
1. It's not the "only" proof. You neglect to mention that Standard Oil (of Ohio) actually lost the original case in 1892. A timeline that is much more interesting to your pricing details.
That is the very case I was talking about, and my time line of prices cover from the start all the way PAST the court case, which by the time Standard Oil already had less than 40% of the market and rapidly losing it.

2. A decline in price doesn't prove commoditization as the driving market factor. A quick glance at other economic competitors points out that the first electric street lights showed up in 1879 (in Ohio no less).
What? Not even sure what you are trying to say here.

3. Declining prices doesn't in any way disprove market undercutting.
To have predatory pricing you have to have two actions, undercutting the market to drive others out, and once a controlling majority share is controlled, raising the prices for profit only without any other market factors. Your claim is that cheap prices are predatory, yet never have an example of the second requirement, that being the raising of prices.

4. There can be no doubt that the vertical integration and product waste diversity was extremely significant in making Standard Oil and Rockefeller the richest man in America. But that also doesn't exclude predatory pricing.
Then provide proof.

5. You know that Standard Oil was just the incorporation, and he owned significant stake in local oil refining before Standard Oil right? Saying "starting from nothing without money" is 2 lies.
He started at the bottom, Standard Oil WAS oil refining, for him to come into the market from the bottom, without massive funds and for 28 years sell below cost to drive out the competition is beyond absurd and goes counter to history. So by your own words, how did he become Americas richest man by bleeding money for 28 years?

6. Predatory pricing isn't only on end consumer goods. You've done nothing to address his domination of interstate railway traffic at what was argued above normal market volume in the final anti-trust case.
So you have nothing on oil, so you jump into another market? He moved 90% of the nations oil, so yes, he is going to dominate rail traffic in a time where pipelines were very few. The pricing he received was due to that volume, others were also offered the exact same price brakes at the same volume levels. This is the case still today with most market goods and services. So I am not even sure what your point is with this other than he moved a lot of oil? Which is basic logic considering he was the largest oil refiner in the country.

7. The realities and cashflows were for consumers and competitors as market actors, and you've done nothing to address information flow nor forecasting on top of that.
Which has to do with what? Your theory that it COULD happen? You have done nothing to address the actual facts of Standard Oil actually using predatory pricing. I will not play this game of "solve every weird theory of how it MIGHT happen that I can come up with", pass.

8. You gave pricing but neglected to cite it's locality nor source. My understanding of the anti-trust case is that they refused to give account for locality costs instead of generalized.
It is an average market cost it was sold at, this is another attempt by you to run me around in requesting I find and quote local prices from every station across the country. Again, pass.

Ultimately I reject your "proof" as being as definitive as you believe it is. I have data and economic theory to back up my point of view. I highly doubt this will be settled on a comment board of a tech website. I definitely agree that most people know the Standard Oil anti-trust case in extreme (and wrong) simplicity.
Please do share, making a sweeping statement about having economic theory to back you up does not make you right. Being so enlightened about this case, you should be able to show at least one cut and dry example of REAL (not "what if" theory) of Standard Oil using predatory pricing.
 
YouTube wants to become new media, by being old media. That and advertisers are being dicks about ad revenue. They clearly don't want YouTube celebrities to do what they want, like PewdiePie, who was recently under attack. But he can do what he wants.

Honestly YouTube needs a competitor cause too much shit lately has made me hate it. First it was the animators which I loved watching YouTube for, but since it takes forever for them to make an animation, they get nearly no revenue. Used to be based on Videos watched, and now it's based on weekly 10min videos. People who have established themselves on YouTube will continue to survive with Patreon and advertising within the videos. Lots of people saw this coming, and were prepared for it. Question is, will YouTube be prepared to lose the very content that people come to YouTube to see?

 
this is an example of where having competition would be a good thing and offers more choices. sadly in this case youtube is pretty the king with few other sites taking a piece here and there...
 
Last edited:
I would think that if an advertiser wanted their ads targeted towards their audience, then Youtube should just charge them a heafty fee to 'target' their ads. If you're selling something that is generic, lets say Chevron gas then don't charge Chevron the "targeting" fee and let their ads show up wherever. I think this is how a pure business would do it. If Chevron really wanted to make sure their ads only ended up on family friendly videos, then charge a fee for that.

Which I guess makes youtube SJW of some sort. Which is their right to do. There are other services out there.
 
BlueFireIce said:
1. It's not the "only" proof. You neglect to mention that Standard Oil (of Ohio) actually lost the original case in 1892. A timeline that is much more interesting to your pricing details.
That is the very case I was talking about, and my time line of prices cover from the start all the way PAST the court case, which by the time Standard Oil already had less than 40% of the market and rapidly losing it.
Really? You're not talking about the 1911 Case with Standard Oil of New Jersey? Because in 1904 they had 91% of oil production in the US. I found no citation that Stand Oil ever dipped below 40% market share once attaining it until dissolution in 1911.

2. A decline in price doesn't prove commoditization as the driving market factor. A quick glance at other economic competitors points out that the first electric street lights showed up in 1879 (in Ohio no less).
What? Not even sure what you are trying to say here.
Replacement products drive pricing down, outside of other benifits vertical integration may provide. You attributed pricing to integration commoditization. I provided an external factor.

3. Declining prices doesn't in any way disprove market undercutting.
To have predatory pricing you have to have two actions, undercutting the market to drive others out, and once a controlling majority share is controlled, raising the prices for profit only without any other market factors. Your claim is that cheap prices are predatory, yet never have an example of the second requirement, that being the raising of prices.
Nope. Only selling products below cost to drive out competition. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...s/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost
The threat of the post pricing and resulting monopoly is enough.

4. There can be no doubt that the vertical integration and product waste diversity was extremely significant in making Standard Oil and Rockefeller the richest man in America. But that also doesn't exclude predatory pricing.
Then provide proof.
Logic. I am agreeing that the vertical integration was great and very profitable, but that doesn't mean there was not predatory pricing. Again you've used the integration above to say his costs were low, but you can have low costs and still price below them.

5. You know that Standard Oil was just the incorporation, and he owned significant stake in local oil refining before Standard Oil right? Saying "starting from nothing without money" is 2 lies.
He started at the bottom, Standard Oil WAS oil refining, for him to come into the market from the bottom, without massive funds and for 28 years sell below cost to drive out the competition is beyond absurd and goes counter to history. So by your own words, how did he become Americas richest man by bleeding money for 28 years?
Your words he was "bleeding money for 28 years". I never made any such claim for such a duration. And standard oil wasn't started at the bottom, it was started after the dissolution of a previous trust in oil refinement.

6. Predatory pricing isn't only on end consumer goods. You've done nothing to address his domination of interstate railway traffic at what was argued above normal market volume in the final anti-trust case.
So you have nothing on oil, so you jump into another market? He moved 90% of the nations oil, so yes, he is going to dominate rail traffic in a time where pipelines were very few. The pricing he received was due to that volume, others were also offered the exact same price brakes at the same volume levels. This is the case still today with most market goods and services. So I am not even sure what your point is with this other than he moved a lot of oil? Which is basic logic considering he was the largest oil refiner in the country.
What? Transportation is part of the cost of goods sold. Do you not pay for shipping? It's not another industry, it's directly related. As are rebates from shippers for volume discounts which are otherwise un-attainable, etc. This is exactly where they got convicted in the 1911 anti-trust case. It's extremely relevant.

7. The realities and cashflows were for consumers and competitors as market actors, and you've done nothing to address information flow nor forecasting on top of that.
Which has to do with what? Your theory that it COULD happen? You have done nothing to address the actual facts of Standard Oil actually using predatory pricing. I will not play this game of "solve every weird theory of how it MIGHT happen that I can come up with", pass.
It's not a weird theory. It's part of my disbelief of McGee's conclusions on predatory pricing not ever being possible (As stated above, he concluded the market will always correct, as you seemingly alluded to in the mention of the waning market share from peak). He said it. I disagree because of those things. If you don't think those are relevant in market corrections, so be it.

8. You gave pricing but neglected to cite it's locality nor source. My understanding of the anti-trust case is that they refused to give account for locality costs instead of generalized.
It is an average market cost it was sold at, this is another attempt by you to run me around in requesting I find and quote local prices from every station across the country. Again, pass.
This is the other part of the 1911 conviction. Is that in competing markets S O sold below total cost, while in monopolistic markets S O sold significantly above costs. This follows with the theory of the consequences of monopoly. Pass if you want but it's relevant to a discussion of pricing, using monopolized markets to offset costs to drive out competitors.

Ultimately I reject your "proof" as being as definitive as you believe it is. I have data and economic theory to back up my point of view. I highly doubt this will be settled on a comment board of a tech website. I definitely agree that most people know the Standard Oil anti-trust case in extreme (and wrong) simplicity.
Please do share, making a sweeping statement about having economic theory to back you up does not make you right. Being so enlightened about this case, you should be able to show at least one cut and dry example of REAL (not "what if" theory) of Standard Oil using predatory pricing.
Click to expand...
https://www.questia.com/read/6026672/the-trust-problem-in-the-united-states Pages 78-80. Unaccounted price variation outside of cost correlated to market competition.

As for continuing this argument, you gaslight my explanations demanding facts while providing non of your own, all the while you're the original accuser. Stating that the common knowledge is wrong but offering no dis-proof. I provide both logical, economic theory, and now down to the pricing sheets.

To quote you:
BlueFireIce said:
when the proof we have only points to that being the case, yet you still refuse to believe it? If I may ask, why?
Click to expand...
 
The Youtube TOS seem to forbid inserting your own ads into the video, or am I reading it wrong?
 
M76 said:
Scorn all you want, but without youtube no content creator would be where they are now.
Click to expand...

you do realize people were making video content before Youtube, right? And without content creators, especially the small time ones who don't get paid for their content, youtube would be nothing.
 
tetris42 said:
Guys, you're all overreacting. Youtube will eventually fuck everyone who is not already enormous. These are just small blips in one direction or the other along the way.
Click to expand...
They're also fucking people that are enormous, it's not just independants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top