Youtube's Shifting Algorithms Hurt Independent Media

I just hope this leads to content being driven back to web sites with content.

here lately to much content was becoming locked up in you tube videos, with people talking and talking and maybe they will get to the point of why you clicked on the video in the first place.

as far as entertainment channels go, same thing better start driving the traffic to your site. stop relying on large corps to fund your content.
 
I lean more toward the German approach to free speech in that I have no problem with censorship of hate speech or inciting violence, Holocaust deniers and whatnot. I also don't think we should be giving a public venue for terrorists. Unfortunately, with the information age we have discovered that not all of it has a positive effect on society. I also don't claim to have a good solution at where to draw the line or how to execute a solution that isn't heavy handed. If Google is going to try to figure it out I wish them luck. Looks like they swung and miss on this one though. Not that I have any issue with the negative impact on infowars. Entertainers that pretend they are real news is something I have a problem with.
 
ThatsAgood1jay said:
Don't build your business on the back of someone else

Youtube as your only means to get content to users is a terrible business model. If you can't sustain traffic to your own hosted content site, then maybe your business sucks.

I am sure Youtube will be fine, they will figure out how to work this.
Click to expand...

I want someone to square this particular mindset and the non-stop advocacy and defense of Google and Netflix when it comes to bandwidth, backhaul, and the costs of data distribution. OTT providers are LITERALLY built on the backs of ISPs, but if the ISPs were just shutting down those folks I don't think you would have the same response.
 
flashoverride said:
I want someone to square this particular mindset and the non-stop advocacy and defense of Google and Netflix when it comes to bandwidth, backhaul, and the costs of data distribution. OTT providers are LITERALLY built on the backs of ISPs, but if the ISPs were just shutting down those folks I don't think you would have the same response.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's because I PAY for that bandwidth, just like Google already pays for the bandwidth they use on their side. I have zero sympathy for ISPs who feel they deserve to be paid 2x. If they cut off content providers, nobody would use their service, because there would be no content to get....well I guess if you had Comcrap you'd get NBC/Universal content. Nope. No sympathy for the ISPs.
 
Patreon is another middle man that will come under attack for supporting terrorism, WATCH!
 
lilbabycat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not nearly in the numbers they're doing it now, and not as a living but as a hobby. There is a big difference.
They didn't get paid before youtube on youtube they get paid. I don't see how they're worse off with youtube than without youtube.
 
flashoverride said:
I want someone to square this particular mindset and the non-stop advocacy and defense of Google and Netflix when it comes to bandwidth, backhaul, and the costs of data distribution. OTT providers are LITERALLY built on the backs of ISPs, but if the ISPs were just shutting down those folks I don't think you would have the same response.
Click to expand...

Your argument is flawed because if you're hosting your own content, you're paying for the bandwidth and you probably have built your own platform.

Google pays for the bandwidth and hosts their own platform, they can pick and choose who gets to use it depending on if it makes them money or not.

No one is defending Google. It's just how the world always has, and will continue, to work. Sorry.
 
M76 said:
Not nearly in the numbers they're doing it now, and not as a living but as a hobby. There is a big difference.
They didn't get paid before youtube on youtube they get paid. I don't see how they're worse off with youtube than without youtube.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the rise of the internet and availability of high-speed connections itself. Youtube is a monopoly that established itself early so it is a household name for "videos on the internet". Other websites, companies, individuals can and have created/used adnetworks of their own. Youtube managed to jump on the right platform/codec/player (flash) at a time when there were many different players were out in the world.
 
M76 said:
Not nearly in the numbers they're doing it now, and not as a living but as a hobby. There is a big difference.
They didn't get paid before youtube on youtube they get paid. I don't see how they're worse off with youtube than without youtube.
Click to expand...
Well it is sort of a bait-and-switch. Youtube made it possible for many of these people to quit their previous jobs and make a living on Youtube. Of course it isn't prudent to put all of one's eggs on Youtube basket, but you can say that about pretty much any job. Most people's livelihoods depend on the one company they work for.

I don't think it is expecting too much that Google be a bit more steady and dependable in how they conduct themselves, knowing how many people depend on their services for making a living. Do no evil and all that crap.
 
lilbabycat said:
You're ignoring the rise of the internet and availability of high-speed connections itself. Youtube is a monopoly that established itself early so it is a household name for "videos on the internet". Other websites, companies, individuals can and have created/used adnetworks of their own. Youtube managed to jump on the right platform/codec/player (flash) at a time when there were many different players were out in the world.
Click to expand...
Capitalism produced and continues to produce much worse than youtube.

What do you expect of them? To give up the market they all but monopolized voluntarily?
Smashing Young Man said:
Well it is sort of a bait-and-switch. Youtube made it possible for many of these people to quit their previous jobs and make a living on Youtube. Of course it isn't prudent to put all of one's eggs on Youtube basket, but you can say that about pretty much any job. Most people's livelihoods depend on the one company they work for.

I don't think it is expecting too much that Google be a bit more steady and dependable in how they conduct themselves, knowing how many people depend on their services for making a living. Do no evil and all that crap.
Click to expand...
I agree the way they're treating their clients (contractors basically) is shit. But what can you do about it ? The only solution you have is to not work for them, or to accept their terms and way of doing things.
 
I've given up on much of "new media" because it's nothing but a swamp of uninformed shit being repackaged over and over, and everyone's a reporter. Be that Youtube or Reddit or FaceBook or the various Blogs and other bastions of "look at me".

I will use a few of those sources to see blips of immediate things happening, but even that I'm doing less of.

Instead, I bought a digital subscription to two newspapers I respect, and I read them in depth, exclusively. The digital subs are nice because I get emails with highlights that I can dive into, and it's not going to be some prick behind a blog who has no idea what he's talking about.

Am I getting "perfect news?" As good as it gets, I feel. Carefully pick sources, look above the fence now and then without investing much time in that. In essence I am saying there is good media out there, but you have to pay for it. The free "news and events" swamp that is much of the internet isn't getting much time from me anymore.
 
buckrodger said:
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:
Click to expand...

Lots of guessing and assuming in that link, also lots of half facts they pulled, probably one of the reasons they didn't quote or reproduce the document where they were getting these claims from. However, I have read the document before, though I did have to hunt for it as i have not read it in some time and it's hundreds of pages long.

Pages that the referenced for the information they are claiming in the linked document.

Pages 35-39: Deals with prices of Standard oil on domestic cost to foreign costs, their complaint is not actually of to cheap of costs, but Standard Oil not selling cheap enough! They also state at the start of page 35 that while "aggressive price cutting of the Standard....All of its competitors, nevertheless can and do sell oil profitably for less than the Standard charges". Which is exactly counter to what the link above is claiming. Did you even bother to read the reference document? It goes on to state that the price difference from domestic to foreign has a lot to do with the fact foreign oil standard was far less strict than domestic, that being "water-white" vs "white" standard. They also assumed that productions costs were the same when they were not, as the production cost they used as a standard for the paper was from Pennsylvania, but the oil being sold in most of the UK etc was refined and exported from Russia and at a lower quality level.

Pages 480-507: Talks about prices between towns, however the main complaint again does not factor quality in prices, they compare the price of cheap "standard white" oil IN BULK, to higher grade "water-white" in barrels (which is not bulk). Of course they are going to have a price variance, that is like going to the gas station and claiming price discrimination because premium is higher in price than regular. They also state that they ASSUME the cost of marketing and delivery is the same in all towns, that they DO NOT strictly calculate individual location costs. The prices were also station level and from Waters Pierce Oil Company, not Standard Oil. You can also see from the chart below, that is straight from that document, they were not selling below cost, keep in mind that margin from the charge makes assumptions about marketing etc costs for each location and does not calculate actual costs based on location etc.

upload_2017-4-20_11-46-43.png


Pages 520-522: Same as above but even better in that you can see a direct correlation of town population and price of gas, bigger cities, with rail or pipeline access and large bulk usage saw lower prices, while the smaller towns saw higher prices...What a shock! We still see that today. As marketing, delivery and volume cost a lot more for smaller towns. They use a few examples that are very poor comparing one larger city to another when one city received bulk gas from rail or pipeline, while the other had only non bulk iron barrel delivery, which obviously had much higher costs.

Last but not least, the linked page is just an opinion piece, not an example that I asked for, all the information in it is wrong or doesn't even exist in the reference document they are claiming, like the southern to northern Cali price variation of 7.2 cents in the south to 124 cents in the north, this does not even exist in the document they are claiming, meaning they flat out made it up, and if that is what you consider proof, I have a bridge to sell you....

Also worth noting the document they claimed to be referencing is also a confidential report, not a strict review or court document and was also recalled after being printed.
 
This is opening the door for a (new?) video hosting site to rise to prominence as YouTube guts it's own userbase. Twitter did this as well and now we're slowly seeing rise of Gab. If they get their shit together Gab could become a mainstream rival, but without the liberal bent.

http://gab.ai
 
BlueFireIce said:
Lots of guessing and assuming in that link, also lots of half facts they pulled, probably one of the reasons they didn't quote or reproduce the document where they were getting these claims from. However, I have read the document before, though I did have to hunt for it as i have not read it in some time and it's hundreds of pages long.

Pages that the referenced for the information they are claiming in the linked document.

Pages 35-39: Deals with prices of Standard oil on domestic cost to foreign costs, their complaint is not actually of to cheap of costs, but Standard Oil not selling cheap enough! They also state at the start of page 35 that while "aggressive price cutting of the Standard....All of its competitors, nevertheless can and do sell oil profitably for less than the Standard charges". Which is exactly counter to what the link above is claiming. Did you even bother to read the reference document? It goes on to state that the price difference from domestic to foreign has a lot to do with the fact foreign oil standard was far less strict than domestic, that being "water-white" vs "white" standard. They also assumed that productions costs were the same when they were not, as the production cost they used as a standard for the paper was from Pennsylvania, but the oil being sold in most of the UK etc was refined and exported from Russia and at a lower quality level.

Pages 480-507: Talks about prices between towns, however the main complaint again does not factor quality in prices, they compare the price of cheap "standard white" oil IN BULK, to higher grade "water-white" in barrels (which is not bulk). Of course they are going to have a price variance, that is like going to the gas station and claiming price discrimination because premium is higher in price than regular. They also state that they ASSUME the cost of marketing and delivery is the same in all towns, that they DO NOT strictly calculate individual location costs. The prices were also station level and from Waters Pierce Oil Company, not Standard Oil. You can also see from the chart below, that is straight from that document, they were not selling below cost, keep in mind that margin from the charge makes assumptions about marketing etc costs for each location and does not calculate actual costs based on location etc.

View attachment 22532

Pages 520-522: Same as above but even better in that you can see a direct correlation of town population and price of gas, bigger cities, with rail or pipeline access and large bulk usage saw lower prices, while the smaller towns saw higher prices...What a shock! We still see that today. As marketing, delivery and volume cost a lot more for smaller towns. They use a few examples that are very poor comparing one larger city to another when one city received bulk gas from rail or pipeline, while the other had only non bulk iron barrel delivery, which obviously had much higher costs.

Last but not least, the linked page is just an opinion piece, not an example that I asked for, all the information in it is wrong or doesn't even exist in the reference document they are claiming, like the southern to northern Cali price variation of 7.2 cents in the south to 124 cents in the north, this does not even exist in the document they are claiming, meaning they flat out made it up, and if that is what you consider proof, I have a bridge to sell you....

Also worth noting the document they claimed to be referencing is also a confidential report, not a strict review or court document and was also recalled after being printed.
Click to expand...

You ignore all my other points above, the pages I specifically referenced as an example -which evaluated cost subracted (for things like delivery) prices-, and continue to provide no information of your own.

I'm not sure how I got sucked into being trolled, but I'm getting out.
 
lollerwaffle said:
Am I getting "perfect news?" As good as it gets, I feel. Carefully pick sources, look above the fence now and then without investing much time in that. In essence I am saying there is good media out there, but you have to pay for it. The free "news and events" swamp that is much of the internet isn't getting much time from me anymore.
Click to expand...

And they've got you hook-line-sinker then. Since you didn't mention who they are, I have to assume they're biased sources, so just assume I've personally insulted your choice and feel free to rebuke as one might normally. :wacky:
 
Here's another person who's hurt by YouTube's changes. This is a guy who shows you how to repair cars. Not exactly controversial content, but he's effected by recent changes.

 
DukenukemX said:
Here's another person who's hurt by YouTube's changes. This is a guy who shows you how to repair cars. Not exactly controversial content, but he's effected by recent changes.
Click to expand...

And in the end I'm betting he'll be fine. The algorithm will mature. Stuff like this won't matter. I get that right now that this is tough for some of these people and it doubly sucks that a few extremist and/or racist asshats have fucked it for everybody.

But there's no easy fix for this one. Google has to tighten the reins and then loosen a bit by bit in order to get it as right as possible. ETCG is also a perfect example of a legit video that Google is hopefully looking at and finding a way to not punish because of asshats. The problem is find that correct algorithm that labels ETCG as good and the car guy that is an asshat as bad. This'll take a bit of time unfortunately.

What I don't get though is why Google doesn't simply take a look at the people who have been around for many, many years or a ridiculous amount of subscribers and quickly vet them and whitelist them if they are deemed OK until the algorithm is truly read. It's not hard to take a look at ETCG and see that he's not some asshat spewing hate in his videos. However, it is quite easy to look at PewDiePie and see that he is an asshat.
 
Man, That's crazy. Seems like they tide has turned way too far in the other direction.
Sorry to all those affected.

I dunno. I never really used youtube for much. No interest in 98% of the crap on there.

I watch Movie trailers, and sometimes how-to vids. That's all. Never had a purpose otherwise. I always felt the rest of the stuff on there was useless trash.

A lot of people had a free money grab for a lot of meaningless content. Now they complain. Here's an idea: get a job.

I know a lot of people don't fit into that category, but most do. It sucks.

I have the same problem with twitch. Don't get me wrong. I like twitch. I watch it. A lot.
But I also hear streamers complain all the time about not getting enough donations, not enough ad revenue, not enough subs, twitch takes too much, etc etc etc. Just a bunch of gimme gimme gimme.
These people are, in my opinion, against the point of twitch. If you have to play games all day every day, to pay your bills, rent, food, etc.. and still complain that's it's not enough. Get a job. And maybe an education so you can get a good one, and you won't have those problems anymore.

I stream. A lot. Do I expect to make anything? Nope. I worked hard for many years, diversified myself, and have other sources of income. If I make money online, awesome! Even better.
I I don't? Well, it's not about making money . It's about sharing what I love, and am passionate about, with the rest of the world.
I suffered and struggled for years to get there.
Teens complaining "Oh you took my money! Boo hoo!" Need a dose of the real world.

And the same ideas apply to youtube. The exact same.

I feel bad for people like the above referenced mechanic. I do. Believe me, an income stream is an income stream. More money makes life better. (presumably, but not always the case, as is well known hopefully by anyone with half a brain)

However, mechanics around here make 45-75 hourly straight. More with OT at 1.5 times base rate, and there's even more to be made from side jobs. That's good money.

If youtube dried up, sorry, glad you got to ride that train while it was here. Now that it's gone, time to buckle down and do some overtime or whatever to maintain whatever lifestyle you have. Work. Like the other 99.9% of America does.

If you think you're better than the rest of us, or you're too good for that, and choose to sit there and complain, then, well, maybe you deserve what you get.

Harsh? Maybe. Doesn't make it any less truthful.

Case in point: I'm disabled. Permanently. Every day is a struggle. A painful one. I have 2, maybe 3 surgeries coming up, just to take the edge off. (I've detailed my situation in previous posts)
I steadfastly refused to apply for disability. I will not rest on my ass and live off of someone's else's hard earned dollars.
I found other ways to make money. I invested, purchased, and spread out income making opportunities everywhere I could. Some successful, others not. But I'm still here, and haven't taken a damn dime from the government. I made it work.
And even better - I do it all without the use of medication. I am 100% substance free of any type. No prescription, no illicit drugs, no alcohol, no pot, nothing. Doc gives me a script, I rip it up and toss it.
I won't even take an advil or tylenol. Why? Because I can deal with ANYTHING life throws at me.
The only exception being anesthesia prior to a procedure, or the rare couple of times a year to reduce a fever.

But yet everyone on youtube or twitch is going" Ah! My free money from a 20 minute vid is going away! Oh no! My life is ruined! What am I gonna do? Oh no! Fight with me!"

What they're really saying is "Oh no! My free money is going away! What am I gonna do with myself if I can't do whatever I want anytime I want while spending YOUR heard earned money? I can't function in the real world! Ahhhhhh!"

Most kids these days can't even socialize to the point where they can pass a job interview, or concentrate on a single task more than 10 minutes. Let alone for an 8 hour work day.

Good lord. learn. This isn't working for you? Get a job. Like everyone else.
 
this is almost as if the "government" had the control over the internet, wasnt the internet still free?
 
Chaos Machine said:
I lean more toward the German approach to free speech
Click to expand...

So no free speech. Gotcha.

---

Anyway, Youtube is a private company and can set the rules how it sees fit. Sure, we can complain, but they aren't obligated to oblige. Hopefully, they'll fix it. If they don't, I guess there will be a mass exodus.
 
In response to advertiser complaints, Youtube's idiot-savant engineers appear to be facerolling their keyboards for a solution. This seems like a problem suitable for delegation to the users and advertiser. Gabe Newell said it best with, "Never compete with your userbase." Use their numbers to build what they want. e.g. Merely provide a substantial preferences and content disclosure form and let a basic matchmaker algorithm push ads appropriately. Accounts could further blacklist ads or channels at their leisure. Think matchmaking/dating service for rating touchy subjects.

"On a scale of 1 being very uncomfortable and 10 being very comfortable, how do you feel about the word cunt?"

Obviously not that fine grained.

What's even more annoying is that advertisers are concerned about their company or product getting associated with particular types of offensive content -- here we are letting dumbass viewers pave an internet censorship superhighway with their logic-jumping whistle-blowing.

Youtube's previous hands-off approach to ad distribution is getting mucked by a poor attempt to classify, filter, and associate content based on specific advertiser requests. For them to think this would come up roses is cocky at best. This doesn't just come off as a public display of incompetence, but moreover, it appears as an agenda beyond mere monotization of their service. While I doubt that's what they had in mind, it conveniently appears that way to the tin hatters.

TL;DR. The problems faced by Youtube are not difficult or expensive to solve, they're just cocky and trying to keep the lid on manually.

Edit: typo
 
Last edited:
when a child is crying, you cant cut the vocal cords. you cant treat everyone in youtube as bad people, because of the action of a few, must everyone else be punished? this idea that if you take off words that describe bad feelings, you are going to make everybody else bad.
 
velusip said:
Youtube's previous hands-off approach to ad distribution is getting mucked by a poor attempt to classify, filter, and associate content based on specific advertiser requests. For them to think this would come up roses is cocky at best. This doesn't just come off as a public display of incompetence, but moreover, it appears as an agenda beyond mere monotization of their service. While I doubt that's what they had in mind, it conveniently appears that way to the tin hatters.

TL;DR. The problems faced by Youtube are not difficult or expensive to solve, they're just cocky and trying to keep the lid on manually.
Click to expand...
Well you say cocky at best, but I wouldn't rule out "multiple departments don't know what they're doing" either. There's been little about Youtube's actions in the past few years that suggests to me they really know what they're doing. On the contrary, I love their reach-out video they did not long ago to respond to problems people were having being unsubscribed:



Their answer: the problem doesn't exist in the first place! So I can't tell if they're just drinking the kool aid, are honestly ignorant, or they know exactly what they're doing and this is just a failed attempt to lie to everyone or what. There's a whole spectrum between incompetence and malice that they could be existing somewhere in!
 
uss enterprise said:
And even better - I do it all without the use of medication. I am 100% substance free of any type. No prescription, no illicit drugs, no alcohol, no pot, nothing. Doc gives me a script, I rip it up and toss it.
I won't even take an advil or tylenol. Why? Because I can deal with ANYTHING life throws at me.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of money you're throwing away (note: very very extremely illegal).
 
BobSutan said:
This is opening the door for a (new?) video hosting site to rise to prominence as YouTube guts it's own userbase. Twitter did this as well and now we're slowly seeing rise of Gab. If they get their shit together Gab could become a mainstream rival, but without the liberal bent.

http://gab.ai
Click to expand...
I don't know how to break this to you, but Twitter isn't that big, which means Gab is irrelevant (unless posts by Richard Spencer gives you a woody). In short, Gab ain't never going to be mainstream, if it's primary audience is right wing conservatives and Alt-Righters. Might as well have Chat, the home for the Left Wingers featuring Jill Stein :rolleyes:
 
tetris42 said:
... Their answer: the problem doesn't exist in the first place! So I can't tell if they're just drinking the kool aid, are honestly ignorant, or they know exactly what they're doing and this is just a failed attempt to lie to everyone or what. There's a whole spectrum between incompetence and malice that they could be existing somewhere in!
Click to expand...

I agree. However, since polarization and pitchfork mobs kinda piss me off, I tend to just mediate.

I dealt with stuff like this when working as a linux system admin. I was frequently approached by directors to make changes to a particular account or service quickly. It wasn't my department or my job, but since I had unrestricted access to everything, they assumed I was the correct person to get the work done without hassle. Of course many of these requests were questionable, against internal and public policy, and I never did them. Instead, I wrote a work order to the appropriate developers, and they could ask me to make the changes so long as it was documented. I can imagine this wouldn't fly in a larger setting with less patient directors and less ethical sysops trying to satisfy the demands of valuable clients. How are these PR folks to know what's happening behind the curtain? In spite of this experience, I'm still skeptical of some of the quick assumptions made by youtubers. After all, knee-jerk reactions, accusations, polarizations, and clickbait titles pull big viewership. It's in their interest to lead the mobs. (This is just how news operates these days. Learn from the pros.)
 
Wow, just wow.
Only now I've decided to read most of this (was having fun in other discussions..the H is a varied place for sure)
Sorry, this is planned, and not a mistake.
I lean left, and vote as such, but I am not an idiot, it obvious that the big spheres of power that support the likes of Hillary Clinton (but not Bernie, so basically corporate "left" or blue dog or whatever)
were shocked to suffer the massive loss they did, that they have decided to 'fix' it.

It is a massive and stupid blunder, plus it breaks the promise of the internet, promoted (to some extent) by the same company breaking it.
The promise of a nearly open forum.
Yes, it their company, so who gives a shit, and blah blah.. and to that extent I think you tube will be diluted, content providers will move away.

How is this any different than messing with 'net neutrality' sure, 'net neutrality' is about ISPs charging money more here and less there, and some such shit, in the end its about messing with the 'economy' of access.. making it less equal and prone to be affected by the whims of the provider (what to effectively ruin Netflix.. why not? sure they might not be able to ban them, but they can slowly break their business model by making it unsustainable)

This is doing the same, it is fucking up the 'economy' of you tube, by fucking around with where the revenue goes, they are doing the same thing as breaking net neutrality.. they are big enough and influential enough to know, it has the same meaning for society.
Yes its 'their' money, so whatever in a way.. they are just using their money to shape the internet.

BTW, doing this now, you know, shocked, because candidate Hillary lost (she lost badly, DEMs lost miserably, atrociously.. don't care about popular vote gaps, and this fucking Russian propaganda bullshit, I mean WTF, the left is in loss derangement syndrome, sorry! many seem they are!) after decades of neglecting 'left-leaning' media in radio, after letting the stomping and making sure unions are not only effectively dead, but the concept demonized..
Sorry.. now upper sphere left leaning jackasses are worried? Koch brother and the like been handing your 'left-leaning' ass over and over and over in media, for decades, but the truth is, you never gave a fuck let things just die on the left, so why worry now?

That I haven't been able to really understand, why now? I guess its loss derangement syndrome.
I guess leftist billionaires are finally worried rightist billionaires are going to eat their cake, take a big fat dump in their 'new' economies, and burn them with coal, yeah that must be it.
 
Last edited:
tetris42 said:
Well you say cocky at best, but I wouldn't rule out "multiple departments don't know what they're doing" either. There's been little about Youtube's actions in the past few years that suggests to me they really know what they're doing. On the contrary, I love their reach-out video they did not long ago to respond to problems people were having being unsubscribed:



Their answer: the problem doesn't exist in the first place! So I can't tell if they're just drinking the kool aid, are honestly ignorant, or they know exactly what they're doing and this is just a failed attempt to lie to everyone or what. There's a whole spectrum between incompetence and malice that they could be existing somewhere in!
Click to expand...

Oh, I respectfully disagree, they know what they are doing, you don't have all this data, and are a company that makes billions analyzing data, and 'don't know' what you are doing.
It's really as close to impossible as anything can be for me to think 'they don't know'.
Oh they know, they know exactly how they are shaping things.
I am thinking they might moderate things, if there is a firestorm about it, but the idea is clear to choke and eliminate undesirables.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Wow, just wow.
Only now I've decided to read most of this (was having fun in other discussions..the H is a varied place for sure)
Sorry, this is planned, and not a mistake.
I lean left, and vote as such, but I am not an idiot, it obvious that the big spheres of power that support the likes of Hillary Clinton (but not Bernie, so basically corporate "left" or blue dog or whatever)
were shocked to suffer the massive loss they did, that they have decided to 'fix' it.

It is a massive and stupid blunder, plus it breaks the promise of the internet, promoted (to some extent) by the same company breaking it.
The promise of a nearly open forum.
Yes, it their company, so who gives a shit, and blah blah.. and to that extent I think you tube will be diluted, content providers will move away.

How is this any different than messing with 'net neutrality' sure, 'net neutrality' is about ISPs charging money more here and less there, and some such shit, in the end its about messing with the 'economy' of access.. making it less equal and prone to be affected by the whims of the provider (what to effectively ruin Netflix.. why not? sure they might not be able to ban them, but they can slowly break their business model by making it unsustainable)

This is doing the same, it is fucking up the 'economy' of you tube, by fucking around with where the revenue goes, they are doing the same thing as breaking net neutrality.. they are big enough and influential enough to know, it has the same meaning for society.
Yes its 'their' money, so whatever in a way.. they are just using their money to shape the internet.

BTW, doing this now, you know, shocked, because candidate Hillary lost (she lost badly, DEMs lost miserably, atrociously.. don't care about popular vote gaps, and this fucking Russian propaganda bullshit, I mean WTF, the left is in loss derangement syndrome, sorry! many seem they are!) after decades of neglecting 'left-leaning' media in radio, after letting the stomping and making sure unions are not only effectively dead, but the concept demonized..
Sorry.. now upper sphere left leaning jackasses are worried? Koch brother and the like been handing your 'left-leaning' ass over and over and over in media, for decades, but the truth is, you never gave a fuck let things just die on the left, so why worry now?

That I haven't been able to really understand, why now? I guess its loss derangement syndrome.
I guess leftist billionaires are finally worried rightist billionaires are going to eat their cake, take a big fat dump in their 'new' economies, and burn them with coal, yeah that must be it.
Click to expand...

I think it's fairly clear that this happened because advertisers don't want to be associated with racists and wingnuts (on either side). That people who aren't either of those things are affected is a tech problem, which I assume (and hope) they eventually fix. As for the "Russian propaganda bullshit," you'll have to ask the FBI and other intelligence agencies why they're investigating. You'll have to ask republicans in Congress why they think it's worth investigating this propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top