Then again I heard someone claim Theresa May is a communist the other day so who knows what left and right mean any more.
There is the old trope about projection, and it is quite true. It's how family values and conservative people are often found to have some sexual orientations that differ from what they rail about, and often are into some nasty pron habits as well.
BTW, on the topic of Idaho and porn, they come in at number 49 in the Pages viewed per capita (88) in a PornHub breakdown of their data. http://www.westword.com/news/p...
Arkansas was last at 77 Page Views per capita, and Kansas was number one at 194 page views per capita.
Not sure if Google wants to take on PornHub et al, and their army of one arm stronger than the other fans.
Porn has nothing to worry about from the Right, and knows it I even read someplace that Utah is the state with the largest number of porn downloads, on the average.
No offense, but are you stupid? Here is something the (Republican) governor of Utah and the (Republican) legislature of Utah did just a few years ago. In case your intellectual disability precludes you from being able to click on a link, Utah was the first state to pass laws declaring pornography a public health hazard.
Porn *IS* terrified that the #MeToo and #KillHarvey and whatever other movements percolating up from the feminist Left that demonize the objectification of women will begin to impact porn consumption.
I'm not sure how many people remember my little Google search experiment vs DucKDuckGo. In it, I chose a topic that might be deemed offensive to sex negative feminists. The search term was "Jillin" which of course refers to female masturbation. In both search engines, with safesearch turned off, DuckDuckGo returned hundreds of images, while Google - almost nothing.
This is all representative of the third wave Feminist and social Justice sex negative ideology that Google and their underlings at Youtube have undertaken. And given their new enforcement of ideology, looks like these sex worker's images going bye-bye is just another bit of the evidence.
It isn't like they haven't been up front about this.
The upshot of all of this is that it is opening financial possibilities for groups who aren't so repressive in nature. As for Porn consumption, there is a lot of the world that doesn't really care about #metoo.
...because your experiences, thoughts, and opinions are representative of the 2 billion people using Facebook. If you don't want to use it then of course they shouldn't either, right?
You must have been having a cosmic barroom brawl with me in your head, BunnyBoy. That's some first class umbrage you're showing. But you have illustrated my second point that there are some who are willing to put up with whatever Facebook does, and whatever anyone who sells your data wants to do with it. Good for you - stay the course. Personally, as some random guy on the internet, I really don't care what the data recipients do to you or any other Facebook user who stays around. You've shown that you don't.
Can't be bothered to find a Psychopath In Florida that posted his intentions to Social Media USING HIS REAL NAME!
But RIAA Copyright infringement? YES SIR! WE WILL ARREST HIM NOW SIR!
While your Fox Newsworthy meme is admirable, it isn't true - There were several notices sent to the dude running the pirate site
Defense of your holy cheeto +5
Relation to truth -1
Consider applying for a cabinet position. You have the street cred. Remember though, you have to work in a her email statement on at least 70 percent of your postings.
I think we're beyond critical mass. Facebook is where everyone goes online to find everyone else, at least in north America and western Europe. People wanna go where their friends, family, and acquaintances are.
Nah, There are limits to what people will put up with. It appears that you have decided there is no limit to the shit Facebook is going to serve you - this indicates how much shit you will get from them.
As for me, I only had an account there because I had to for two projects I am heading. The one ends this summer, and as for the other, I'm delegating that to another person. I guess My family and friends can call me or meet me if they want to see me because as soon as I can - I'm out of there. And won't miss it a bit.
One lawsuit was filed by a Facebook user who claims the Menlo Park company acted with "absolute disregard" for her personal information after allegedly representing that it wouldn't disclose the data without permission or notice
No...SHE had absolute disregard for her own personal information, by giving that to FB. FB is data collector first and formost. You give them data do not be surprise when they use or sell.
There are limits to what can be done with that information - it is not absolute. Facebook or anyone else for that matter cannot give your information to someone in order to commit fraud or other crimes - that would make them an accessory to the crime.
The sheeple have finally figured out FB's business model, FB is running for the hills figuring the average sheeple has an IQ south of 100, yet being idiots, the sheeple are finally thinking FB is fucking them over big time.
Most people don't - or more accurately didn't -care a whole lot if they are monetized. In a ideal world, their data wold be used merely to sell them stuff. But it ain't an idealized world, and the sheer amount of money in facebook's hands, the corruption that that much money brings, and outfits like Cambridge Analytica just happy to serve and advance that corruption just made the situation inevitable. So not just the US election, but Brexit are now under scrutiny.
Now perhaps they might find a big change in their attitude.
unless there is some homeopathic thing going on, holding a cell phone right up to your head exposing it to the the near field is going to dose you a hella lot more than being in the far field of a cell tower.
Hell if it homeopathic you'd better strap a handset to your head permanently, increasing the distance could be deadly...
That's why we can't leave the solar system. At some point the radiation from the sun will burn us to a crisp when we get far enough away.
Actually I think the federal government needs to radically downsize and butt out of 20-30+% of what they have their fingers in. If I recall from my 8th grade civics class, the states retained all responsibility for everything not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution. In my mind the federal government has badly over reached their powers.
The problem is RF doesn't respect state boundaries a bit. Not a bit.
I'm happy to state's right's stuff, but trying to imagine a country where each state sets the RF communications rules, frequencies, and modes would be completely chaotic. 50 different sets of rules.
What should probably scare you even more is that it isn't only the Federal government, but all of this radio and electronic stuff is regulated by the world! Every few years, most all the countries of the world get together and hammer out rules as to what frequencies are used for what.
Anyhow yeah, its a complicated and intricate job hammering out how to work this stuff. I have a big poster of this in my office https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... .
And that's just one country. But its worth a read. And time after time we have interests that try to mess with it - thing the failed Broadband over Power Line or setting up broadband service that nukes GPS. It's usually people trying to trump physics for money or ideology.
There is a good chance that this initiative will create interference and destroy the very service it aims to create. The reviews were put in place for a reason. Physics was the reason, not left wing bureaucrats trying to impede progress.
The wavelength of ionizising radiation (the type that can cause cancer) is well known. Cellphone towers don't emit it.
While not ionizing radiation, RF radiation can and does have physical effects - Usually heating.
So I'm not going to write off the entire idea of carcinogenic effects, but I think it is very unlikely. And unless there is some homeopathic thing going on, holding a cell phone right up to your head exposing it to the the near field is going to dose you a hella lot more than being in the far field of a cell tower.
Humans have been carrying that experiment on for years now, I know people who spend hours every day soaking up near-field radiation from their smartphones. We should see some human results.
Jesus fucking Christ people. Free speech only keeps the government from impeding your speech. No one else, NO ONE ELSE, has to bear the burden of spreading your speech if they choose not to.
I sent in all my pro trump articles to the NYT and they wont publish them... CENSORSHIP!!!!1!
Absolutely. Youtube could force everyone to put a swastika, or hammer and sickle or rainbow flag on their videos, and pledge fealty to Che Guevara or Trump before being allowed to post.
But just like businesses like Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A and Papa John's Pizza have found, alienating a lot of people isn't necessarily a good business decision.
But yea, there aren't any laws her against suicide any more either. That doesn't mean its a great thing to do.
It isn't censorship, its banning. There is a difference.
Stripping and cleaning a weapon is not Rocket Science. That said, there are some aspects that are not exactly intuitive.
Having the weapon disassembled before you, on video, with commentary such as, "Push this pin here to release the mechanism" is extremely helpful.
Oh hell yeah. I get into trouble with some of the NRA folks here - I don't toe their line - but I am a firearm enthusiast, and enjoy watchnig these mechanical video's for their information value.
As far as your general attitude that people shouldn't complain, I assume you don't think people should be bitching about Facebook? After all it's a third party site an you voluntarily joined, so what they provide to others is no bug deal, right?
Side note - the Facebook/Cambridge Analytics debacle is really blowing up into something nasty. With video to prove it.
There are plenty of gun related industries that would be more than happy to have their brands advertised on Hickock45, for instance.
There is a big problem with almost all internet advertising. Ad serving companies serve it up, and other companies buy it up. So it is completely unfocused, and in many cases, Malware is served with it.
So you might get an ad for a super new catheter on your hunting or cooking channel. Simply inappropriate for the demographic.
But we are discussing the ads, not the real reason Youtube is going on a pogram against channels they deem wrong. Susan Wojcicki is creating a safe space. One I suspect will be getting more and more restrictive as time goes on.
It's likely their advertisers (their real customers) didn't want to have their products shown next to gun videos. Advertisers are weirdly picky that way
That's one excuse they bring out to parade around. But when the channels getting defunded or kicked just happen to align with their SJW boss lady, it is possible there is a lot more going on. Certainly some of the demonetized channels have placed their own inline ads into their videos means that some folks are happy to advertise on what Youtube claims is inappropriate for advertising content.
I don't often watch the gunning shows on Television or Youtube, but certainly the times I have watched on television, they've managed to sell plenty of advertisement, much of it focussed. Which is great.
My only objection if any is when you get these videos where they give some cute woman, usually not dressed in a whole lot, a rifle to fire, when it is obvious she's never been given any training, then the fun ensues as she hurts herself. A couple with scopes, I suspect there's a broken orbital bone as the "hilarious" outcome. That's some irrisponsible shit going on there.
But that's an aside. Simple civilized discussion, advice, and tips and tricks shouldn't be banned - ever.
The thing is....WHY is YouTube banning videos that are showing PERFECTLY LEGAL activities with perfectly legal to own tools? (yes, a gun is nothing more than a tool).
Youtube is run by a Social Justice Warrior, Susan Wojcicki, and before anyone refutes that, they just need to DDG on her name. And she is sinking her claws deeply into YouTube now.
That is the WHY? of YouTube's pogrom. She, along with Google's new Social Justice mission, is creating a safe space for those people who cannot handle anything other than their personal opinion.
They've been targeting firearms, Men's rights, and I wonder if they will shut down the UNiversity of Nottingham's Periodic Table of Videos soon. who knows what things could be made if someone has a knowledge of the elements.
That isn't at all what you said. Allow me to refresh your memory:
"Flint's problem was self-inflicted, they quit buying water from Detroit and started sourcing from the Flint river, which is basically a cesspool and they didn't add the federally required phosphates to it."
So while there is a strong implication that you are positing that the citizens of Flint Michigan deserved to be poisoned by lead, I'll just write that off to your communications ability to be on par with your memory.
the Emergency Manager didn't put Flint into receivership, the Emergency Manager didn't neglect to replace lead municipal water pipes for decades, the Emergency Manager didn't fail to train water treatment staff properly.
Then you need to get in touch with the task force, and tell them that you - the random guy on Slashdot - have refuted all of their claims, and demand a formal investigation into the criminal activities of the Flint Water Advisory Task Force
But the emergency manager was responsible for putting water into those pipes that would remove the protective layer. I would hope that unlike you, he did not wish to poison the people of Flint, but was acting out of ignorance.
Issues with engineering and chemistry are involved, and just like the laws of physics, are not concerend with politics. You cannot pass a law that says poorly built bridges cannot fail. Gravity doesn't care. You can't pass a law saying that the speed of light is something other than what it is.
The point is that lead pipes that have the right quality of water running through them quickly build up a protective layer that keeps lead out of the water. Send water with the incorrect quality of water through those pipes, typically "soft" water, or acidic water, and simple chemistry tells us that chemicals in the water will interact with the lead walls, causing lead compounds to enter the water.
The decision was the emergency manager's decision, and it was made with the idea that teh emergency manager's decision trumps the laws of physics and chemistry. Despite your idea that the People of Flint deserved what they got, and that poisoning is a proper punishment for financial ineptitude, sorry, a whole lot of people including those with all of the evidence disagree with you.
The only way that water form the Flint River should ever have been put into their water system would be if the entire water distribution infrastructure was changed. But that wouldn't have happened, because it would have cost too much money.
Sounds a bit conspiracy theory to me. Educational channels, LGBT, etc. have been hit as well. I'd put it down to hiring 10,000+ people without adequate training/controls on how policies should be enforced.
There is a problem though. Most conspiracy theories have little "just so" aspect. Certainly Damore was fired because of his opinion, and you only have to listen to Wojcicki and understand where she sits on the sociopolitical spectrum, and take her statement that there will be consequences at face value, then see actions that look a lit like consequences happening.
A connection? Possibly not. Denial of an activity that looks a lot like what the boss lady said she was going to do? Maybe. I mean there are supporters of a particular Western leader that still say "absolutely no evidence" as the evidence piles up too.
Now to your point of 10K People with inadequate training. I'll bet that is a big part of it. But it also illustrates the fatal flaws of Youtube's "Ministry of Truth" operation. But first a little history. Let us go way back. Back to the days of America on line.
There was a time that AOL tried to limit spam by blocking AOL addresses of people accused of spreading spam. The results? There were people who became accusation factories.Post something disagreeing with them? You're blocked. It quickly escalated into people accusing other people not even in conversations with them as spammers. On all sides of the political spectrum. And as quickly as it started it failed.
Not everyone will accept viewpoints different than theirs. AOL proved it accidentally. And unless Youtube has miraculously found 10,000 people who are accepting of different views, they will have the same problem. People have long accused the right of living in an echo chamber - which is correct of course. But the far left has it's own version - the demand for safe spaces and suppression of contrary speech.
So out of these 10,000 people, you will have people on both sides who will want to stomp on videos that do not agree with their worldview. You will also have retaliatory accusations and punishments. This is how you get channels like David Pakman demonetized. He's definitely a liberal, and he's a good listen, and hardly falls under anyone's idea of a problem, except for those who cannot handle an opinion that they don't hold. How are you going to train a person into accepting views other than their own when they are inclined to want those views silenced?
So yeah, there will be some collateral damage and friendly fire victims as Youtube endures this ideology pogrom and cleansing. But all things considered, there is a person at the helm that thinks if you interrupt her, you're being sexist. A person who declares "consequenses" then starts dishing out those consequences.
Yup, sounds like some nut and his moon landing hoax and chemtrail conspiracies to me - don't you agree?
I don't think they're social engineering - simply going where the 'respectable' money is.
Have to disagree with that one. They told James Damore that "If you have a particular opinion, even though it is lawful you shall not be employed by Google."
Youtube Chief Executive Susan Wojcicki has specifically told people that People who do not toe the line will face consequences. The original cites were of obvious nasty stuff like the guy who posted laughing over a corpse, but now? Gun video channels demonetized than kicked off. MGTOW channels kicked off. Anti-Social Justice Warrior channels kicked. The head of Youtube is even victimized by Men's Microagressions! I get pissed when I'm constantly interrupted - mostly by women - but I think it is more because I choose my words carefully, not that I am a victim of microagressiona or women's sexist attitudes. But I digress.
If enforcing a hard left turn and getting rid of those who do not obey - well, I call that social engineering. Especially when the freaking head of Youtube after all she's acheived, still plays the victim card, I am becoming skeptical about the Advertisers pulling support excuse. Certainly some of the channels they demonatized but not yet kicked off have attracted perfectly normal advertisers that they've put right in the videos. As Youtube becomes a safe space for people who need a safe space in order to function, they might find themselves with somce competitors who don't police content according to their ideology.
If I want to buy product X, whyvis store Y that sells product X not a great option?
I find the sponsored links very helpful when actively trying to take part in commerce.
Because some of us still do research on the internet, not try to max out our credit cards? Because not everything we do on the internet is buying something. Because if some person or company makes money off my searches, I have to decide if what I am seeing is actually relevant to what I am looking for.
Is there a troublesome product that the makers of that product can make certain that only positive reviews or research show sup on the first page? Is there a political affiliation that might pay to have it's ideology promoted?
In my opinion, Monetization of search results is right up there with the determination that corporations are people.
I spend so much time fighting with Google's intrusive results these days I could hardly even care.
In addition to this apparent statement that Google is going to be serving you a lot of ads in the search results - otherwise how could you monetize them - Google might be attempting social engineering.
I while back I did a search experiment on this, using a search term that certain groups might find offensive. Used Google and DDG with safesearch off. Not many results for Google, while pages of them from DDG.
Forgetting for a minute my using a rude term to likely trigger a difference in results, less rude terms will be easy to alter. Think of it as gateway manipulation.
I think that the twin aspects of monetization of the search results themselves, coupled with active manipulation of the results by determining what Google allows you to see is going to make the search engine worse than useless, as in inherently untrustworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans think porn is pretty dangerous.
https://www.gq.com/story/flori...
Then again I heard someone claim Theresa May is a communist the other day so who knows what left and right mean any more.
There is the old trope about projection, and it is quite true. It's how family values and conservative people are often found to have some sexual orientations that differ from what they rail about, and often are into some nasty pron habits as well.
BTW, on the topic of Idaho and porn, they come in at number 49 in the Pages viewed per capita (88) in a PornHub breakdown of their data. http://www.westword.com/news/p...
Arkansas was last at 77 Page Views per capita, and Kansas was number one at 194 page views per capita.
Not sure if Google wants to take on PornHub et al, and their army of one arm stronger than the other fans.
It is the outbreak of hairy palms and blindness that is the driver for this kinda of mania...
Doood! You gotta stop at the point that you just need glasses!
No offense, but are you stupid? Here is something the (Republican) governor of Utah and the (Republican) legislature of Utah did just a few years ago. In case your intellectual disability precludes you from being able to click on a link, Utah was the first state to pass laws declaring pornography a public health hazard.
http://www.newsweek.com/utah-p...
Remember, Republicans like the forbidden nature of Pr0n.
Porn *IS* terrified that the #MeToo and #KillHarvey and whatever other movements percolating up from the feminist Left that demonize the objectification of women will begin to impact porn consumption.
I'm not sure how many people remember my little Google search experiment vs DucKDuckGo. In it, I chose a topic that might be deemed offensive to sex negative feminists. The search term was "Jillin" which of course refers to female masturbation. In both search engines, with safesearch turned off, DuckDuckGo returned hundreds of images, while Google - almost nothing.
This is all representative of the third wave Feminist and social Justice sex negative ideology that Google and their underlings at Youtube have undertaken. And given their new enforcement of ideology, looks like these sex worker's images going bye-bye is just another bit of the evidence.
It isn't like they haven't been up front about this.
The upshot of all of this is that it is opening financial possibilities for groups who aren't so repressive in nature. As for Porn consumption, there is a lot of the world that doesn't really care about #metoo.
...because your experiences, thoughts, and opinions are representative of the 2 billion people using Facebook. If you don't want to use it then of course they shouldn't either, right?
You must have been having a cosmic barroom brawl with me in your head, BunnyBoy. That's some first class umbrage you're showing. But you have illustrated my second point that there are some who are willing to put up with whatever Facebook does, and whatever anyone who sells your data wants to do with it. Good for you - stay the course. Personally, as some random guy on the internet, I really don't care what the data recipients do to you or any other Facebook user who stays around. You've shown that you don't.
Because it's obviously an AHuxley "Everything's a conspiracy" rant?
Probably related to all of those lead chips he ate as a child.
The people who work for the gov don't like to think about what history recalls.
Tuskegee, MK-Ultra, Gulf of Tonkin.
Oh hell yeah, those groups kicked ass! We were so wasted at that Gulf of Tonkin concert - remember, remember?
Can't be bothered to find a Psychopath In Florida that posted his intentions to Social Media USING HIS REAL NAME!
But RIAA Copyright infringement? YES SIR! WE WILL ARREST HIM NOW SIR!
While your Fox Newsworthy meme is admirable, it isn't true - There were several notices sent to the dude running the pirate site
Defense of your holy cheeto +5
Relation to truth -1
Consider applying for a cabinet position. You have the street cred. Remember though, you have to work in a her email statement on at least 70 percent of your postings.
I think we're beyond critical mass. Facebook is where everyone goes online to find everyone else, at least in north America and western Europe. People wanna go where their friends, family, and acquaintances are.
Nah, There are limits to what people will put up with. It appears that you have decided there is no limit to the shit Facebook is going to serve you - this indicates how much shit you will get from them.
As for me, I only had an account there because I had to for two projects I am heading. The one ends this summer, and as for the other, I'm delegating that to another person. I guess My family and friends can call me or meet me if they want to see me because as soon as I can - I'm out of there. And won't miss it a bit.
One lawsuit was filed by a Facebook user who claims the Menlo Park company acted with "absolute disregard" for her personal information after allegedly representing that it wouldn't disclose the data without permission or notice
No...SHE had absolute disregard for her own personal information, by giving that to FB. FB is data collector first and formost. You give them data do not be surprise when they use or sell.
There are limits to what can be done with that information - it is not absolute. Facebook or anyone else for that matter cannot give your information to someone in order to commit fraud or other crimes - that would make them an accessory to the crime.
The sheeple have finally figured out FB's business model, FB is running for the hills figuring the average sheeple has an IQ south of 100, yet being idiots, the sheeple are finally thinking FB is fucking them over big time.
Most people don't - or more accurately didn't -care a whole lot if they are monetized. In a ideal world, their data wold be used merely to sell them stuff. But it ain't an idealized world, and the sheer amount of money in facebook's hands, the corruption that that much money brings, and outfits like Cambridge Analytica just happy to serve and advance that corruption just made the situation inevitable. So not just the US election, but Brexit are now under scrutiny.
Now perhaps they might find a big change in their attitude.
unless there is some homeopathic thing going on, holding a cell phone right up to your head exposing it to the the near field is going to dose you a hella lot more than being in the far field of a cell tower.
Hell if it homeopathic you'd better strap a handset to your head permanently, increasing the distance could be deadly...
That's why we can't leave the solar system. At some point the radiation from the sun will burn us to a crisp when we get far enough away.
Actually I think the federal government needs to radically downsize and butt out of 20-30+% of what they have their fingers in. If I recall from my 8th grade civics class, the states retained all responsibility for everything not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution. In my mind the federal government has badly over reached their powers.
The problem is RF doesn't respect state boundaries a bit. Not a bit.
I'm happy to state's right's stuff, but trying to imagine a country where each state sets the RF communications rules, frequencies, and modes would be completely chaotic. 50 different sets of rules.
What should probably scare you even more is that it isn't only the Federal government, but all of this radio and electronic stuff is regulated by the world! Every few years, most all the countries of the world get together and hammer out rules as to what frequencies are used for what.
Anyhow yeah, its a complicated and intricate job hammering out how to work this stuff. I have a big poster of this in my office https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... .
And that's just one country. But its worth a read. And time after time we have interests that try to mess with it - thing the failed Broadband over Power Line or setting up broadband service that nukes GPS. It's usually people trying to trump physics for money or ideology.
There is a good chance that this initiative will create interference and destroy the very service it aims to create. The reviews were put in place for a reason. Physics was the reason, not left wing bureaucrats trying to impede progress.
How about Albert Einstein?
The wavelength of ionizising radiation (the type that can cause cancer) is well known. Cellphone towers don't emit it.
While not ionizing radiation, RF radiation can and does have physical effects - Usually heating.
So I'm not going to write off the entire idea of carcinogenic effects, but I think it is very unlikely. And unless there is some homeopathic thing going on, holding a cell phone right up to your head exposing it to the the near field is going to dose you a hella lot more than being in the far field of a cell tower.
Humans have been carrying that experiment on for years now, I know people who spend hours every day soaking up near-field radiation from their smartphones. We should see some human results.
Jesus fucking Christ people. Free speech only keeps the government from impeding your speech. No one else, NO ONE ELSE, has to bear the burden of spreading your speech if they choose not to.
I sent in all my pro trump articles to the NYT and they wont publish them... CENSORSHIP!!!!1!
Absolutely. Youtube could force everyone to put a swastika, or hammer and sickle or rainbow flag on their videos, and pledge fealty to Che Guevara or Trump before being allowed to post.
But just like businesses like Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A and Papa John's Pizza have found, alienating a lot of people isn't necessarily a good business decision.
But yea, there aren't any laws her against suicide any more either. That doesn't mean its a great thing to do.
It isn't censorship, its banning. There is a difference.
Stripping and cleaning a weapon is not Rocket Science. That said, there are some aspects that are not exactly intuitive.
Having the weapon disassembled before you, on video, with commentary such as, "Push this pin here to release the mechanism" is extremely helpful.
Oh hell yeah. I get into trouble with some of the NRA folks here - I don't toe their line - but I am a firearm enthusiast, and enjoy watchnig these mechanical video's for their information value.
As far as your general attitude that people shouldn't complain, I assume you don't think people should be bitching about Facebook? After all it's a third party site an you voluntarily joined, so what they provide to others is no bug deal, right?
Side note - the Facebook/Cambridge Analytics debacle is really blowing up into something nasty. With video to prove it.
That points to a deficiency in YouTube's system.
There are plenty of gun related industries that would be more than happy to have their brands advertised on Hickock45, for instance.
There is a big problem with almost all internet advertising. Ad serving companies serve it up, and other companies buy it up. So it is completely unfocused, and in many cases, Malware is served with it.
So you might get an ad for a super new catheter on your hunting or cooking channel. Simply inappropriate for the demographic.
But we are discussing the ads, not the real reason Youtube is going on a pogram against channels they deem wrong. Susan Wojcicki is creating a safe space. One I suspect will be getting more and more restrictive as time goes on.
It's likely their advertisers (their real customers) didn't want to have their products shown next to gun videos. Advertisers are weirdly picky that way
That's one excuse they bring out to parade around. But when the channels getting defunded or kicked just happen to align with their SJW boss lady, it is possible there is a lot more going on. Certainly some of the demonetized channels have placed their own inline ads into their videos means that some folks are happy to advertise on what Youtube claims is inappropriate for advertising content.
I don't often watch the gunning shows on Television or Youtube, but certainly the times I have watched on television, they've managed to sell plenty of advertisement, much of it focussed. Which is great.
My only objection if any is when you get these videos where they give some cute woman, usually not dressed in a whole lot, a rifle to fire, when it is obvious she's never been given any training, then the fun ensues as she hurts herself. A couple with scopes, I suspect there's a broken orbital bone as the "hilarious" outcome. That's some irrisponsible shit going on there.
But that's an aside. Simple civilized discussion, advice, and tips and tricks shouldn't be banned - ever.
The thing is....WHY is YouTube banning videos that are showing PERFECTLY LEGAL activities with perfectly legal to own tools? (yes, a gun is nothing more than a tool).
Youtube is run by a Social Justice Warrior, Susan Wojcicki, and before anyone refutes that, they just need to DDG on her name. And she is sinking her claws deeply into YouTube now.
That is the WHY? of YouTube's pogrom. She, along with Google's new Social Justice mission, is creating a safe space for those people who cannot handle anything other than their personal opinion.
They've been targeting firearms, Men's rights, and I wonder if they will shut down the UNiversity of Nottingham's Periodic Table of Videos soon. who knows what things could be made if someone has a knowledge of the elements.
That's pretty much what I said,
That isn't at all what you said. Allow me to refresh your memory:
"Flint's problem was self-inflicted, they quit buying water from Detroit and started sourcing from the Flint river, which is basically a cesspool and they didn't add the federally required phosphates to it."
So while there is a strong implication that you are positing that the citizens of Flint Michigan deserved to be poisoned by lead, I'll just write that off to your communications ability to be on par with your memory.
the Emergency Manager didn't put Flint into receivership, the Emergency Manager didn't neglect to replace lead municipal water pipes for decades, the Emergency Manager didn't fail to train water treatment staff properly.
Then you need to get in touch with the task force, and tell them that you - the random guy on Slashdot - have refuted all of their claims, and demand a formal investigation into the criminal activities of the Flint Water Advisory Task Force
But the emergency manager was responsible for putting water into those pipes that would remove the protective layer. I would hope that unlike you, he did not wish to poison the people of Flint, but was acting out of ignorance.
Issues with engineering and chemistry are involved, and just like the laws of physics, are not concerend with politics. You cannot pass a law that says poorly built bridges cannot fail. Gravity doesn't care. You can't pass a law saying that the speed of light is something other than what it is.
The point is that lead pipes that have the right quality of water running through them quickly build up a protective layer that keeps lead out of the water. Send water with the incorrect quality of water through those pipes, typically "soft" water, or acidic water, and simple chemistry tells us that chemicals in the water will interact with the lead walls, causing lead compounds to enter the water.
The decision was the emergency manager's decision, and it was made with the idea that teh emergency manager's decision trumps the laws of physics and chemistry. Despite your idea that the People of Flint deserved what they got, and that poisoning is a proper punishment for financial ineptitude, sorry, a whole lot of people including those with all of the evidence disagree with you.
The only way that water form the Flint River should ever have been put into their water system would be if the entire water distribution infrastructure was changed. But that wouldn't have happened, because it would have cost too much money.
Sounds a bit conspiracy theory to me. Educational channels, LGBT, etc. have been hit as well. I'd put it down to hiring 10,000+ people without adequate training/controls on how policies should be enforced.
There is a problem though. Most conspiracy theories have little "just so" aspect. Certainly Damore was fired because of his opinion, and you only have to listen to Wojcicki and understand where she sits on the sociopolitical spectrum, and take her statement that there will be consequences at face value, then see actions that look a lit like consequences happening.
A connection? Possibly not. Denial of an activity that looks a lot like what the boss lady said she was going to do? Maybe. I mean there are supporters of a particular Western leader that still say "absolutely no evidence" as the evidence piles up too.
Now to your point of 10K People with inadequate training. I'll bet that is a big part of it. But it also illustrates the fatal flaws of Youtube's "Ministry of Truth" operation. But first a little history. Let us go way back. Back to the days of America on line.
There was a time that AOL tried to limit spam by blocking AOL addresses of people accused of spreading spam. The results? There were people who became accusation factories.Post something disagreeing with them? You're blocked. It quickly escalated into people accusing other people not even in conversations with them as spammers. On all sides of the political spectrum. And as quickly as it started it failed.
Not everyone will accept viewpoints different than theirs. AOL proved it accidentally. And unless Youtube has miraculously found 10,000 people who are accepting of different views, they will have the same problem. People have long accused the right of living in an echo chamber - which is correct of course. But the far left has it's own version - the demand for safe spaces and suppression of contrary speech.
So out of these 10,000 people, you will have people on both sides who will want to stomp on videos that do not agree with their worldview. You will also have retaliatory accusations and punishments. This is how you get channels like David Pakman demonetized. He's definitely a liberal, and he's a good listen, and hardly falls under anyone's idea of a problem, except for those who cannot handle an opinion that they don't hold. How are you going to train a person into accepting views other than their own when they are inclined to want those views silenced?
So yeah, there will be some collateral damage and friendly fire victims as Youtube endures this ideology pogrom and cleansing. But all things considered, there is a person at the helm that thinks if you interrupt her, you're being sexist. A person who declares "consequenses" then starts dishing out those consequences.
Yup, sounds like some nut and his moon landing hoax and chemtrail conspiracies to me - don't you agree?
Prison should be more like a five-star resort, right?
Explain how your howaboutusm relates to his statement.
I don't think they're social engineering - simply going where the 'respectable' money is.
Have to disagree with that one. They told James Damore that "If you have a particular opinion, even though it is lawful you shall not be employed by Google."
Youtube Chief Executive Susan Wojcicki has specifically told people that People who do not toe the line will face consequences. The original cites were of obvious nasty stuff like the guy who posted laughing over a corpse, but now? Gun video channels demonetized than kicked off. MGTOW channels kicked off. Anti-Social Justice Warrior channels kicked. The head of Youtube is even victimized by Men's Microagressions! I get pissed when I'm constantly interrupted - mostly by women - but I think it is more because I choose my words carefully, not that I am a victim of microagressiona or women's sexist attitudes. But I digress.
If enforcing a hard left turn and getting rid of those who do not obey - well, I call that social engineering. Especially when the freaking head of Youtube after all she's acheived, still plays the victim card, I am becoming skeptical about the Advertisers pulling support excuse. Certainly some of the channels they demonatized but not yet kicked off have attracted perfectly normal advertisers that they've put right in the videos. As Youtube becomes a safe space for people who need a safe space in order to function, they might find themselves with somce competitors who don't police content according to their ideology.
Why can't the two be related.
If I want to buy product X, whyvis store Y that sells product X not a great option?
I find the sponsored links very helpful when actively trying to take part in commerce.
Because some of us still do research on the internet, not try to max out our credit cards? Because not everything we do on the internet is buying something. Because if some person or company makes money off my searches, I have to decide if what I am seeing is actually relevant to what I am looking for.
Is there a troublesome product that the makers of that product can make certain that only positive reviews or research show sup on the first page? Is there a political affiliation that might pay to have it's ideology promoted?
In my opinion, Monetization of search results is right up there with the determination that corporations are people.
I spend so much time fighting with Google's intrusive results these days I could hardly even care.
In addition to this apparent statement that Google is going to be serving you a lot of ads in the search results - otherwise how could you monetize them - Google might be attempting social engineering.
I while back I did a search experiment on this, using a search term that certain groups might find offensive. Used Google and DDG with safesearch off. Not many results for Google, while pages of them from DDG.
Forgetting for a minute my using a rude term to likely trigger a difference in results, less rude terms will be easy to alter. Think of it as gateway manipulation.
I think that the twin aspects of monetization of the search results themselves, coupled with active manipulation of the results by determining what Google allows you to see is going to make the search engine worse than useless, as in inherently untrustworthy.