Slashdot Mirror
Is the Golden Age of YouTube Over? (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Verge:
As YouTube battles misinformation catastrophes and discovers new ways people are abusing its system, the company is shifting toward more commercial, advertiser-friendly content at a speed its creator community hasn't seen before. The golden age of YouTube -- the YouTube of a million different creators all making enough money to support themselves by creating videos about doing what they love -- is over... By the end of 2016, when algorithm changes were creating headaches for some of the platform's biggest creators, people started announcing they had to take a break from the site they called home. YouTube wasn't what it was between 2011 and 2016... YouTube was exerting more control over what users saw and what videos would make money...
YouTube faced an escalating crisis of radicalization and sweeping conspiracy theories that had been ignored by executives for years. The company's first small efforts to address these serious issues -- promoting content from musicians, late-night shows, and recommending fewer independent creators -- would have huge secondary effects on the middle-tier creators who had once been the heart of the platform during its golden period. It pushed YouTube toward the exact same Hollywood content to which it had once been an alternative.... Even people outside of YouTube saw what was happening. "YouTube is inevitably heading towards being like television, but they never told their creators this," Jamie Cohen, a professor of new media at Molloy College, told USA Today in 2018....
Individual YouTube creators couldn't keep up with the pace YouTube's algorithm set. But traditional, mainstream outlets could: late-night shows began to dominate YouTube, along with music videos from major labels. The platform now looked the way it had when it started, but with the stamp of Hollywood approval.
It's a contrast from the earliest days of YouTube, the article argues. Rather than user-generated content, "it was something else that helped the site explode in popularity: piracy." But their pivot to user-generated content apparently slowed with what YouTube creators call the "adpocalypse" -- YouTube's aggressive demonetization of "problematic" videos. (A handful of creators had been making more than a million dollars a month, and some even quit their jobs to focus on making videos full-time.)
To be fair, by 2017 YouTube had a problem. Every minute users uploaded 27,000 minutes of new footage, making it difficult to pre-screen. But after adjusting their algorithm, "perceived, secretive changes instilled creators with a distrust of the platform."
The old YouTube "seemed to welcome the wonderfully weird, innovative, and earnest, instead of turning them away in favor of late-night show clips and music videos," writes the Verge. But the new YouTube is different, say two brothers who used CGI to re-create Mortal Kombat's most gruesome kills on their RackaRacka channel. They say the new YouTube now buries their videos for "excessive violence."
YouTube faced an escalating crisis of radicalization and sweeping conspiracy theories that had been ignored by executives for years. The company's first small efforts to address these serious issues -- promoting content from musicians, late-night shows, and recommending fewer independent creators -- would have huge secondary effects on the middle-tier creators who had once been the heart of the platform during its golden period. It pushed YouTube toward the exact same Hollywood content to which it had once been an alternative.... Even people outside of YouTube saw what was happening. "YouTube is inevitably heading towards being like television, but they never told their creators this," Jamie Cohen, a professor of new media at Molloy College, told USA Today in 2018....
Individual YouTube creators couldn't keep up with the pace YouTube's algorithm set. But traditional, mainstream outlets could: late-night shows began to dominate YouTube, along with music videos from major labels. The platform now looked the way it had when it started, but with the stamp of Hollywood approval.
It's a contrast from the earliest days of YouTube, the article argues. Rather than user-generated content, "it was something else that helped the site explode in popularity: piracy." But their pivot to user-generated content apparently slowed with what YouTube creators call the "adpocalypse" -- YouTube's aggressive demonetization of "problematic" videos. (A handful of creators had been making more than a million dollars a month, and some even quit their jobs to focus on making videos full-time.)
To be fair, by 2017 YouTube had a problem. Every minute users uploaded 27,000 minutes of new footage, making it difficult to pre-screen. But after adjusting their algorithm, "perceived, secretive changes instilled creators with a distrust of the platform."
The old YouTube "seemed to welcome the wonderfully weird, innovative, and earnest, instead of turning them away in favor of late-night show clips and music videos," writes the Verge. But the new YouTube is different, say two brothers who used CGI to re-create Mortal Kombat's most gruesome kills on their RackaRacka channel. They say the new YouTube now buries their videos for "excessive violence."
Double ads to watch anything and a "recommended" section full of crypto-fascist garbage, yeah, it's fucking over!
1998: Don't be evil.
2008: Good and evil are highly subjective.
2014: We make robots for the government.
2019: We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.
Captcha: chained
It's impossible to even get monitisation.
I wanted to start a mountaineering channel but you need a huge number of subscribers and videos to even begin. No way I'm going to spend a year of my life making trash videos for the small chance to qualify making a tiny amount of money.
The old TV channels might "dominate" the trending page, but they aren't really in terms of views pr. video. They do seem to get preferential treatment.
It is clear that if you want to make it your source of income, actually making a video is just a small part of the whole process. Finding the right time of day to post, figure out the right key words you need to include in your script and of course at least post once pr. week, preferably every day to please the current configuration of the algorithms.
If you don't post once pr. week, your videos won't get recommended to viewers as much at similar topic videos and when you do post once pr. week, YouTube will recommend your videos on other topics to viewers that has been watching your video on one topic/category.
It is all very complicated and a lot of work to "break through".
Also user engagement on one video also seems to improve views on other videos, likes and dislikes work but comments seems to be rated higher value in user engagement.
But you can still make $2-$3 pr. thousand views if you keep away from "controversial" topics.
This is all just my own experience from my own little channel. I am certainly not going to make it my job since YouTube likes to change the rules and not tell you what the changes are. At least you need to diversify into other media platforms as well.
If you were getting, say, 10k a month before and then YT changed and you're getting less, then you ought to take a look at the business facts.
If you can construct a case that you'd get more money off YT than relying on it, then that's what you ought to do when your videos don't appear in the algorithm. They were never under any obligation to passively promote you so you should already have a backup plan for when that ceases to be the case... Right?
Brooms from planet X are running the central banks?
And the ads and the ads and the ads. Then some more ads. The content has become corporate and did I mention the ads?
Corporatism != Free Market
nope
Censorship ruins everything. They should have 2 youtubes. 1 with the robots and filtering and another the classic youtube with like youtube responses, no filtering, no nothing. It'll get there again, once the current moral panic dies down. Hopefully Matt & Trey are right and it's just a few more years.
"two brothers who used CGI to re-create Mortal Kombat's most gruesome kills"
Maybe, common good of general public (especially children/teenagers) really do not need such content???
Maybe, humanity really needs children who did not grew-up w/ such content, so they are not mentally screwed-up???
IMHO, whole internet (especially YouTube & FaceBook & Twitter) desperately needs clean-up (always)!!!
IMHO, internet companies/websites have social responsibility, to protect & serve common good of general public/humanity, whether they like it, or not!!!
Everybody whos been paying attention knows this. We just need a replacement now.
I left after they censored Hillary Clinton Illuminati videos.
And yes, you "tech people" that's still censorship. The government doesn't have a monopoly on that practice.
("tech people" love parroting the meme that a private corporation can't censor somebody. I don't understand where that comes from.)
There are other places to upload videos, right? You're just going to have to make your own arrangements to get paid. I mean, if you were looking for easy money from youtube, well, that's just too bad. You gotta make your own money press. There are other internet outlets for that also.
Youtube, and all the social media/market place tech companies are caught between those who want more freedom and less censorship and for them to behave as a passive neutral channel of goods and information and those who want more 'safety' and control and proactive regulation of content. Sometimes you have the exact same people demanding both. But you can't have it both ways, control of fake news inevitably will spill over to shutting down alternative news outlets, hysteria about pedos means no comments at all on any video with a kid walking into frame. Censorship of offensive content inevitably morphs into censorship of unpopular opinions. Forget net neutrality. This is what will determine what our future internet will look like. We as a society will have to choose, we can either have a bland 'safe' corporatized internet that is essentially an al la carte TV channel or we can have the wild west Internet and whatever it will grow into in the future it all its terrible glory and freedom. Google, governments, and the other companies favor the former option, are we going to stop them?
Absolutely right. But, now apply this logic to the internet writ large. RIP the internet. I remember the first time I searched for something with few to no results, only to find that there were now many more results. The internet was growing! I remember the first time I found something blackholed, lost to never be found again. The internet is now shrinking. It's dying.
Since my videos can be removed for comments made by anyone, I will no longer allow comments. That signaled the end of YouTube for me.
There is nothing but indie creator content in my youtube. Veritasium, Kurzgesagt, 3blue1brown, Vihart, etc etc..
The post above seems like it's trying to manufacture outrage
The 'golden age' of the Internet in general is long since over. Everything is tracked, monitored, monitized, and charged subscription fees for. Wouldn't at all be surprised if 10 years from now you're not only paying for basic access to the Internet, but every last thing you access on it charges a subscription fee one way or another.
I agree that there is(was) a problem with new modifications in recommendation ML routines, but the bias is not as described, in my case, as such I would think twice before saying that developers are explicitly pushing certain materials, but they are pushing material which is not fitting to viewer preferences.
However last two or three weeks, things are getting better. After months of Bollywood recommendations and some strange pop music videos popping up, interestingly both videos and advertisements got meaningful and related to my interests recently. I do not know how much of this is due to manipulations on my history, and how much is due to a new modification in algorithm.
Most of the content is shit.
They can make whatever rules they want.
In the future, microcelebrities will be famous for 15 microseconds.
Next thing you know, they remove monetization from channels that didn't have acertain number of followers.
Next they demonetized channels when people complained about the content. A lot of Men's rights and MGTOW challis were hit because of women who didn't want their content on Youtube. Firearms channels were hit people people demanding that sort of thing not be shown on Youtube.
Figuring that what was good for the goose was good for the gander, the recently demonetized or disgruntled started complaining about the likely people complaining about their favorite channels. Chaos ensues.
Google has some real problems these days. At the same time they are administratively full blown Social Justice Warriors, they have sexual discrimination Lawsuits against them, and have revolting employees because they apparently aren't Socially and politically pure enough.
Protip: Social Justice Warriors are never placated, they just find something new to be outraged at.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
WAY too many words in that summary.
Summaries are supposed to, you know, summarize!
Sheesh.
links and publishing is not "abusing its system".
People want to find and share the content they are interested in.
Not what ad brands want.
It will not always be the same politics a brand expects to see.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
You posted a 20 minute video but used 5 seconds of my content? Even though it might have been used for commentary or satire?
I own that video now.
$$$$$ THANKS FOR THE FREE CASH BUDDY $$$$$
It's almost like "fighting radicalization" can only take place in a paradigm of censorship-by-default that only allows massive rights-holders to distribute content.
It's almost as if people thought there were no other video hosting sites!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I guess that lady that fired some shots at some YouTube office was giving a heads-up ( or duck)
YouTube ads are not overwhelmed with scams and exploits and such, and I don't think I've ever seen a YouTube ad that was questionable as such. Takes money to make a video ad, don't think virus writers and script kiddies want to spend time or money on something like that. Big Business probably likes telemetry stuffs, like screen rez and bandwidth and geographic location.
Adverts are literally corporate propaganda. Only retards watch them.
Thanks for being retarded, I guess.
Pushed non-stop the last 2+- years with countless thousands of hours of prime time cable and broadcast channels as well as youtube.. Was the Russian/Trump collusion, when in fact we knew for some time the investigation was started by BS and theres more Clinton Foundation/Russia collusion than anything else going(Foundation also found improperly spending $)..
Do you see CNN, MSNBC, and the rest now banned for conspiracy theories etc? No .. This is Globalists trying to censor and make it so their voice is the only one heard.
"YouTube ads are not overwhelmed with scams and exploits and such" = True, but "overwhelmed" = you're willing to be a guinea pig for that 1 in 1 million? Fuck that, and you. Block ads or die apologizing.
"Big Business probably likes telemetry stuffs, like screen rez and bandwidth and geographic location." EXACTLY, why are you not also blocking and spoofing your canvas and obscuring yourself generally?
Do you LIKE walking around NAKED and being targeted by LITERALLY EVERYONE as you go? Or is it a consumer-whore-urge-too-powerful issue? Laziness? What?
"Takes money to make a video ad, don't think virus writers and script kiddies want to spend time or money on something like that" Oh, I see now. You're an idiot.
https://securelist.com/it-threat-evolution-q3-2018-statistics/88689/
"(A handful of creators had been making more than a million dollars a month, and some even quit their jobs to focus on making videos full-time.)"
No shit? Who wouldn't quit their job to earn a million dollars a month making YouTube videos?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Remember that this did not just randomly or organically happen. This was openly orchestrated. And everyone let it happen because they were too busy tweeting about Trump's moronic sound byte of the day to care.
Never forget how the Wall Street Journal freely admitted that they hired three people to spend weeks mining and deceptively editing PewDiePie's content, then sent it directly to Disney for the express purpose of starting a controversy where none existed. Never forget that mainstream media organizations like Wired and The Independent (along with a few "new media" news organizations, such as The Young Turks) parroted this story uncritically and did not truthfully describe the video in question (which showed a closeup of PewDiePie's face looking shocked and then saddened after the words "Death to Jews" actually appeared on the screen). Never forget that none of them followed up to tell their readers that the Wall Street Journal not only edited his videos to remove all of the context indicating that it was comedic satire but even edited a shot of him pointing at something off-screen and implied that it was a Nazi salute.
None of this is conspiracy theory. The Wall Street Journal was frank and open about their motives in helping to instigate this "adpocalypse". Just days later, they penned a story that basically explained how their intention was to not merely embarrass PewDiePie specifically, but to also start a moral panic amongst advertisers so as to compel Youtube and other new media giants to reel in ALL of this independent nonsense, ALL of this un-sanitized family-unfriendly content, all of this "let the viewers decide what they want to see" nonsense, all of this free speech nonsense.. They were so cheerfully open about this that they didn't even bother pay-walling that article.
Like I said time and time again when this happened two years ago, this is not about "forcing" Youtube or other corporations to host content, though partisans will always still seek to end the conversation by saying "free market at work; nothing to see here." Corporations like the Wall Street Journal were able to do this by leveraging the fears of advertisers, fears that are ultimately rooted in the desires and actions of consumers like you and me. We aren't just a part of this ecosystem; we are its keystone species.
So please never forget that this was not a natural or organic or grassroots thing that happened. Never forget that controversy was artificial, was intentionally created and cultivated by large corporations for cynical purposes. Never the day the tail wagged the dog and then bragged about doing it. Understand that this is NOT a shining example of free market supply and demand harmony. Understand how viewers and content producers were ignored in favor of what old media wanted to see happen.
This is not a fluid or free market sort of thing. This is monolithic and dictatorial. There is no fine-grained option (from my understanding) that allows individual advertisers to opt-in to specific videos that Youtube has deemed not politically correct enough, not vapid and conventional enough. And nobody (be they advertiser or producer or viewer) has the clout to roll their own competitor to Youtube. Anyone who doubts this doesn't understand how the Millennials, how these "Digital Natives" have grown up to think about technology. For them, Youtube IS online video (other than porn) and there is very little incentive for them to poke their heads outside of that walled garden.
Once again, there will be replies accusing me of being not just Trump apologist but a paid troll. I wish I didn't have to say thi
ivan you are retarded
Double ads to watch anything and a "recommended" section full of crypto-fascist garbage, yeah, it's fucking over!
Pretty ridiculous having two ads at the start. Ads that are sometimes minutes long. If I pause it for too long (sometimes overnight) it won't resume without forcing more ads.
YouTube is not worth watching without an ad blocker.
YouTube had a golden age?
AND I MISSED IT?
Shit.
I miss everything.
Let that be the case
+1 this
From the summary: "But after adjusting their algorithm, "perceived, secretive changes instilled creators with a distrust of the platform." "
Youtube's heyday is over, since Youtube was taken over by the mega-corporation, Alphabet/Google.
Young viewers are exposed to gorilla advertising, product placement, vulgarity, gratuitous violence, and ghetto fights. This type of content, more then anything else, is what I associate with Youtube, and therefore with Google and Alphabet.
Innovate creators have only to gravitate to other platforms, that aren't dominated so much by corporate interests. Some day, a new platform will emerge that welcomes new content from the small creator. Money isn't the end-all for creators. Google execs are slow to catch on to this. Some day Google and Alphabet will be broken up, or go broke due to excessive fines.
Are you sure you actually read those links?
Or did you just spew your rant, google the subject, and spew whatever showed up to make it seem like your rant was paraphrasing something?
Slashdot is definitely the target for practice with troll bots, and whether human powered or computer programs the method is the same. Basically random text generators fed google search results run from terms picked up on the target pages. They have advanced a bit over Eliza, but they are all still really obvious.
What the world needs to see is the actual source code. Someone needs to drag Big Brother Google's secret algorithms out into the light of day. Let the world see just how corrupt they really are.
In my reality, the top news on Slashdot is "14-Year-Old Earned $200,000 Playing Fortnite on YouTube". In my reality, a lot of tech news has sadly moved to videos on YouTube, and new tech YouTube channels appear almost daily. My kids watch YouTube, not TV.
Good to know even 5 and 6 digit slashdotters don't fucking read what they're replying to any more. It was the next logical step in the progression-RTFA, RTFS, now RTFP. If you care to check the article I linked to, you'll see that I was the submitter of that story from 2 years ago.
I even commented in the post that the length was a negative, but if I didn't cover several of those points, it was just inviting the same tired shitty anti-communist replies that usually get modded up to +5.
I don't have the time or energy to craft a short-enough-to-be-easily-readable-but-still-pertinent post these days. Brevity is hard when you know the morons are right around the corner with their non-sequiturs unholstered.
I met a member of the "alt-right" the other day. She was a hot little 24 year old hippie traveler girl in fishnet stockings. She openly expressed support for all sorts of "deplorable" things: Trump, Brexit, freedom of speech, heterosexuality, the working class.
Yes, I was very surprised. Pleasantly so.
Ha. If you felt like checking, you might notice that I'm the submitter of that the story from two years ago with 920 comments. No worries; I know reading is hard. Like I told the other guy, I guess we've gone from RTFA to RTFS to RTFP now. I even commented in the post that shorter would've been better but I just don't know how to make it short any more, not when the ignorance is so deep and the nonsensical propaganda replies are so well-rehearsed.
It's been well over a year since I read that stuff but read it I did. (I didn't include *all* of the relevant links because I figured the post would probably be little-noticed. I didn't expect to get mistaken for a spam bot, though, I must admit.) The Wall Street Journal was all very open about this, the reporters all bragging about what they'd done. Youtube's crackdown happened immediately afterwards and was also very public and open about it. For those who were paying attention, it was and is common knowledge that this event was one of the major catalysts for Youtube's policy shifts. But you can go on and believe it's a conspiracy theory if you must. I did use a lot of words after all. All the conspiracy nuts like words, therefore, etc.
Specifically--and I just remembered this--one of the reporters bragged about it with additional details on Twitter. Just remembered that. He was really quite candid in his comments and overall gung-ho attitude. There are also a couple other relevant WSJ articles around the same time period that *are* paywalled that I have saved somewhere. I don't remember what was said where, exactly. Other people have it all cataloged, I'm sure. Two years ago plenty of other slashdotters checked the links and chimed in with their astonishment and agreement. If you cared to check.
Meh. It doesn't matter, though. None of it does. Just running low on drugs tonight and accidentally started thinking too much again. Blinked and two years slipped by. I mean it is pretty funny on one level... how we can be in exactly the same place, how Trump can say the mainstream media was fake news and that's reason enough for everyone to believe that anyone who calls out the mainstream media on anything is a lying conspiracy nut. Governance by reverse psychology. Although the evidence is all right there, right there in the open for anyone to pick up and put together with only a very very small amount of deduction required, there's no way of actually getting any significant fraction of people to go to all that trouble.
"Is the Golden Age of Youtube over?" asks a news company that directly competes with Youtube content.
Ok, while there are many issues with the YouTube algorithm's and monetization of videos, this article is very skewed and doesn't seem to address the core issues of social media self regulation, and paying for good content that's in demand. The "Golden Age", as it's been dubbed here, is not well define. I get plenty of content from YouTube and find it quite helpful. If a content creator provides videos that I like, then watching a few ads is no big deal to me. The problem, for many, is watching so many ads gets old, when I simply want to learn about something. I believe that the educational value in YouTube is there best selling point. That said however, I get what I'd like to call, Ad Burnout: watching so many Ads, my head explodes. I constantly hit the skip button for those dumb surveys, and mute until most video ads have ended; have you noticed the ads getting shorter? Another problem is the demand for content. There so much content, and the demands are always changing. Could one of the big colleges or universities perform a study on content and demand trends have gone for the lest ten years? I think that would help both YouTube, creators, and viewers to get the most out of the platform. Finally, YouTube, doesn't answer to anyone really, except maybe the advertisers and viewers. We need competition is what I'm saying here. Without competition, you end up with Skynet. And no one is going to tell Skynet what to do. While I agree, there are some issues with the algorithms, and favoritism; There's also plenty of good content beginning to emerge. That said, Alternatives drive innovation. My guess is that this article was put together from someone terribly upset with the platform. Could this have been written by some folks over at the verge? Hell, the first link point to a damning article, longer the most people want to take time to read. Perhaps this is fallout from all of the bad press that the Verge has received over the past six months or so? Are you guys still bitter about the Bad PC Build? Get over it, and provide some better videos. And maybe do some better research about the things you're complaining about, with studies to back your claims. Not claiming that YouTube is problem free, but the Author could do a better job at organizing key data points about trends in content, Ads, and monetization in order to paint a picture, rather that regurgitating frustrations. Just my two cents.
This is the key to it. The internet in general, and Facebook Google/Youtube in particular -- was deemed ( only deemed mind you) to have influenced voter decisions against the status quo. Not just the US Presidential election, but on matters like Brexit, or wider european elections. The voters' decisions were across the political spectrum. Sometime they voted right, sometimes left, but more and more often, they vote to move away from the status quo political system.
The internet has been blamed for this. It is not as manicured and manufactured as most of the post-War media has become. It allows dissent in all forms, and mass platforms for that dissent. Whether you're against say, war in Libya, immigration, privatising public utilities, the welfare state, or Game of Thrones, there is a place for you on the internet and millions of people can hear your arguments.
The ruling class have suddenly realised they don't like this.
And so the classic vice of media pressure is being turned against companies and individuals to try and put the internet genie back in his bottle. The ideologies and practices of the ruling class are not up for debate or scrutiny and the power of millions to do so freely is something to be denigrated and ultimately curtailed, once enough consent for the crackdown can be manufactured. And it is being manufactured by the likes of the Wall Street Journal and quite a few other "Papers of Record".
It's especially disappointing to see the most educated people in society being the most susceptible and pliable recipients of arguments to crack down on the internet and free speech in general. But that is the nature of class warfare. Beneath all the cheap talk, people act in their class interests. And neither Free Speech not Democracy are any longer in the class interest of the political, executive, or administrative stratum of our societies.
Back in the day, you would put your video on YT, but then you would embed it into your own site and link to it from places you think people would like to see it. YT wasn't a destination, it was a place to host videos.
That shit died with monetization, not with changing algorithms. YT put themselves in this position by providing a revenue share.
YouTube is a private business, not a government organization. They can delete or prohibit anything they want, for any reason they want. They don't even have to give you a reason. They can just delete your video because they don't like you.
If they hold patents that prevent competition, that creates government suppression of alternative platforms of the same type.
It could be argued that government courts enforcing those patents for them, while the censorship is in progress, against operators of an alternative platform that shows content they reject, constitutes a first amendment violation and thus invalidates the patents in question.
It would be interesting to see an alternative video platform take that tack - even without a court case. The operators could announce that they are allowing the rejected content explicitly to make the claim that they have to carry it in order to head off the suits.
And if it ever came to court they could also argue that there was no case because the patent-holder's business is not be harmed by others hosting content they won't carry, and with the algorithms secret the alternative video company can't be expected to determine which subset of the content that is.
"But while we're at it, let's get those algorithms by the discovery process, to see how much damage they might be entitled to if the court rules for them on content they would carry." (Then, if the court rules that carrying content YouTube wouldn't reject IS an infringement, ask for the algorithms to be made public, along with any future changes, so the creators can know what to send to the alternative providers and the alternative providers can know what's safe to carry.
Fat chance? Maybe. But the law is a tricky thing and there's no way to be sure how a court will rule on an argument until it does. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A site or a service starts out good, then overtime, it gets top heavy with accumulated bullshit controversy, bullshit bureaucracy, and bullshit changes to the site itself which makes things slower, more prone to breakage, and just plain damn annoying.
We see this happen in the 'real world' too with businesses and governments.
YT would not be the first to fall because of it, and it certainly won't be the last.
Who's here because of the AC comment. ;)
only about one video a month, but her content's solid and incredibly interesting if you're into retro games, especially if you'd like to learn about the British gaming scene in the 80s and 90s.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
uBlock + NoScript FTW
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Nobody cares to read the article that you didn't read before you shitposted it.
Back when Youtube just became available on mobile, when nearly everybody had a flip phone, there was a very limited selection of videos you could watch. Yes, you could search, but most videos would bring up a "this video is not available on mobile" error or something along those lines. I found this incredibly frustrating.
I'm wondering if the videos that were "available" were the ones that were monetized.
Go on Youtube and search for 'Sandy Hook crisis actors'. Five years ago, you would get numerous long videos produced by random members of the public, going into detail about why they thought Sandy Hook was a hoax, and showing news footage of the 'parents' failing to cry while talking about their children, who allegedly had been killed just ONE or TWO days earlier. Now all you get in the first two or three pages of results are two or three minute MAINSTREAM MEDIA clips from CNN, ABC, etc. all telling you how awful those people are, who dare to question the official narrative. Who knew? The media is telling us that we mustn't doubt anything they tell us. Okay...
Now Youtube is turning into a massive censorship platform, where only the 'official' line can be seen. Look at Alex Jones as a classic example.
Youtube is now constantly pushing the controlled media, which is what we DON'T want to see when we go to Youtube - that's why we go there.
It's now really hard to find any dissenting videos on there, you have to know the names of the creators you are looking for, most of the time, everything else is hidden under a morass of controlled media bullshit.
I wish I had mod points to mod you up.
I'm surprised there aren't more services offering alternative indexing of YT videos.
I just googled for such a thing, and found vitascope.tv, which I'd never heard of before.
Seems to me a service that offers "find the videos you want even if youtube wants to bury them" could be the next thing.
(I haven't been over there in almost a decade)
Again, I not only read it but I was the one who submitted it (along with an associated response video) to slashdot two years ago. You can see my user name attached to that article. It received 920 comments, none of which provided any evidence to the contrary, whereas plenty of slashdotters looked at the same articles and watched the same videos and came to the same conclusions I did.
It is common knowledge that Youtube's policies changed as a direct result of this incident. But please, don't let that stand in the way of your own brainless shitposting.