"The law would also apply to "behavioral or psychological experiments or studies," such as the ones used by Cambridge Analytica in order to sort users by personality type."
Crap - my relatives are really gonna miss those "What color dildo are you?" Facebook quizzes.
My wife tells me that my sister and the other female relatives are still going to these sites. No doubt there are ones for stupid narcissistic males as well.
Some people must think I do that too, because they all come up to me and ask "What kind of asshole are you Ol?
... and I can't shake the suspicion that there is a direct link here. I'm closing in on 50 and can observe the described decline in working memory first hand. It moves back and forth between being mildly annoying/funny and flat out scary.
What they have done is kind of like brainwaves on overdrive here. From perusing the article, I pick up on "theta".
Note that all of the cosmic bullshit is bullshitty. But the effect isn't. The main different "brainwaves" are alpha, beta, and theta. There are other minor ones. Now wearing headphones - you have to wear headphones - you listen to the sound. A very simple one will have two sine waves at different frequencies that create a heterodyne. Theta is around 6-7 Hz. There are ones with music or ambient sounds as well.
I use it to relax - at least for theta. Alpha waves make me irritable. I don't have memory issues, but you might try it and see if you notice anything.
Anyhow, some new agers have co-opted a very interesting thing. This is no crystal harmonies or astral projection hoohaw. it is a way to relax. To me, a state of relaxed concentration is awesome.
There are a lot of scientists with low or lacking ethics. They believe because they are scientists they can only do good and hence doing anything for grants is quite acceptable. Incidentally, you will also find quite a few that fake results and publish outright lies in this group.
Given the math and the lawyers fees, it looks like the entire population of the world all owes the law firm Dewey, Cheatham and Hough a hundred dollars per person.
"Citizens should have full control over their own data" - now show me one single US entity (Corporation or Government for that matter) that will abide by such a concept.
If we can't have anything close to this before AI, what dream world do you live in to apply this TO AI?
You forgot to mention the rest of the friggin world, dood!
Or is it just the US that triggers your spittle flecked rage?
Profit used to come from growth and expanding into new markets. But now there is nowhere left for them to grow, so they start to focus on saving inward. It is a completely different phase of capitalism.
I've always called it the K-Mart effect. At one time, K-Mart was the uncontested king of retail sales. They were growing and growing hard. And there was no stopping them.
Then when they started pushing the limits of just how many stores they could build, and the limits of what might be called "growth profit", they showed all the signs of trying to increase profits via the bean counters. Weird stuff, like requiring you to stop at the service desk to get the check you would pay with pre-approved. And at that time, a lot more people payed by check. They made several different sub-stores, and heaven help you if someone made a mistake at the checkout counter, it apparently required a special person from the particular sub store to fix the problem. And of course, they started getting rid of as many people as possible, so you would have 50 people in line for one poor checkout clerk, and any issues had to be taken care of by the top manager at the store.
All at the express orders of the bean counters, who seem to think that a company can cannibalize itself to success.
So people simply stopped shopping at K-Mart while it ate itself from within. They started shopping at Wal Mart.
Which is now in the process of cannibalizing itself. Another company will probably come along.
Unless we shift to cannibalizing ourselves, metaphorically or literally. Countries can do the same as businesses. We are not automating to create jobs - we are now automating to destroy them.
The question is will we deal with the resulting life changes for people in a civilized way, or will we embark on the most destructive depopulation the world has ever known? My cynical mind says we're going to have a really nasty version of the second.
Certainly they are capable of being jerks. That does not absolve you of being creepy.
Ahhhh, good old manshaming. A woman on Tinder would never consider me as creepy, because I would not interact with one. Because Tinder itself is inherently pretty creepy. I'd no more go there for hookups than I would go to look for dates at a stripper bar.
The very idea of arranging a "date" with a person you have never met, only through a photo and self- description is pretty weird, and smacks of terrible and sad desperation.
Let me try your shaming tactic here...... If your standards are that low, then have at it.
Not as long as they are part of a market where they "have to" make more profit.
But that's never going to change. People are greedy and those that make more profit can afford more nice things.
This isn't likely to end well. First thing is, we need to understand the goal of waves of automation.
As an example, the industrial revolution wasn't designed to eliminate people doing work. Even though it ran concurrently with a lesser need for farmers, the goal was an increase in productivity. A displaced farmer might just slide over into a factory job.
The specific goal of this automation effort is to replace "expensive" labor with a less expensive way to accomplish the same work.
So if more human jobs are created, the automation revolution has failed.
My own concerns are that with perhaps 90 percent of humanity rendered unemployable because they are humans, that society is going to have to adjust two things:
Goods and services produced will have some disruption because there will be an ever dwindling market for those goods and services.
That 90 percent of zero value humanity will need addressed. With humans in the loop, that suggests to me that the excess humanity will be eliminated. Probably not in a peaceful manner either.
There are peaceful ways to achieve this depopulation, but humans seldom do things in a peaceful manner. We're going to be damn lucky if we don't bring about our own extinction in the depop wars.
Surely we are at peak "calling everyone fascist" by now. Show of hands, who here has never been called a fascist? Socialists called George Orwell a fascist...while he was himself a socialist. While he was fighting literal fascists in Spain.
You do see the flaw with that, I would hope. As long as the political narrative is acceptable, or you didn't give someone booboo feelings you would get paid. Deviate from the straight and narrow, and you don't.
That's one of the most warped and entitled things I've ever read. No, nothing at all gives you a RIGHT to get paid for your speech.
I don't think I've ever noted that I thought it was a right. Youtube could decide tomorrow that no males were allowed, or no females were allowed, or that all content people have to make a donation to the NRA, or Join the Rosicrucians.
That is Youtube's right. People have the right to say what they think of that though That is a right that the responders have. Works both ways. I thinnk you are having imaginary arguments with me.
They need to use demographics, just like regular Television has so successfully. Takes a bit of work, but not that hard.
No you don't get it. It's their money, they don't need to do anything.
Why do you keep telling other people what to do with their money? Are you a communist or something?
It is rather amusing that you claim that I don't "get it". I do get many things. Demographics allow a venue showing advertising to show advertisements tailored to their likely audience. They aren't forced to do that. But it's hard to imagine male catheter ads being shown on Teletubbies. Confuses the kids, and annoys the parents.
When Papa John Schnatter went far right wing nut during the 2008 elections, and when he doubled down on his inanity, he caused a lot of damage to the Papa John's Pizza brand. Sales dropped, and when he made some disparging remarks about dark pigmented people of African descent in a freaking recorded call for chrissakes - he was removed from his position. Did he have the tight to do all that? Oh hell yeah. Were the shareholders happy? O hell no!
When Hobby Lobby fought tooth and nail in the courts to refuse to pay for birth control, and eventually the supreme court decided that they had the right to do that - it harmed their business, even though they had an apparent God given right to do the best to make certain every sperm and egg resulted in a birth.
Alex Jones, who is one brain cell away from playing with his poo, managed to lose a lot of money after saying crazy shit. Impressive for a guy whose business is saying crazy shit. My examples are mostly right wingers, but Youtube is showing it isn't immune to the rule by virtue of being left wing.
Intelligent businesses and corporations realize that Pizza and health care packages shouoldn't be attached to political or religious beliefs. That is a sound business decision, one that shareholders appreciate.
Once you start making political decisions that are completely unrelated to your business, you'll piss off about half of everyone. And that's your right. Smart people understand that everyone's money is worth the same, and deciding that you are going to spout off about your thoughts on border walls, birth control, third wave feminists, or men who prefer to remain single, you start making political judgments.
But hey - it's your right. It's your money. If you are okay on telling a large part of your audience to FOAD because "Muh Rights!" by all means do . No argument there. I had great enjoyment watching Papa John and his self inflicted financial wounds and the loss of his position. And Alex Jones is just a gift that keeps on giving. It's all just popcorn and tequila to me. So is responding to your posts, until I get bored. So keep those coming.
Cody's Lab was temporarily banned from uploading new videos because he microwaved some fruit flies. Microwaving insects is not allowed on YouTube.
So are experiments on drosophila illegal or something? Oh, Youtube must have shit their panties when Mythbusters did some experiments on honeybees and water/alcohol.
Youtube has videos on termite control. They actually kill those innocent little termites. Time to kick 'em off.
Have you got any *good* examples? There are plenty of fuck-ups on YouTube's end, I'm just questioning he premise that it's the lack of monetization that is causing the problems right now. I'd say it's the copyright enforcement system they are using, and the recommendation system.
You remind me of a guy who once worked for me. instead of conversations, he would listen for a trigger word, the pounce on it to start an argument with me. He'd lose the whole point of the conversation, by trying to make himself look smart. It did eventually cost him his job.
Yes, Youtube has a number of problems. Almost all big problems have multiple causes.
I take it that I am not supposed to point out one of them? Or are you saying that demonitization is not a problem? Well, I had a Youtube channel for a while that was demonitized for not having enough subscriptions, which was pretty obvious since it was just started a few weeks prior. Nothing remotely controversial, just instructional videos. So I stopped producing them.
Yeah -that was a problem as well. Copyright issues are a problem. Attempted redefinitions of "fair use" are a problem. Ad content is a problem. Apparently, controversial marial that triggers some folks and have them attempt to take down or demonitize channels is not, will not, and cannot ever be a problem. Perhaps you should make a listing of allowable examples, and demand they be excluded from discussion. After all, if people say things that do not fit your narrative, those opinions must be suppressed.
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.
Wow thats pretty entitled. It's not enough to have free speech. It's not even enough to be given a free platform on which to share your speech. No, you're going to whine if you're not actually PIAD by a big company to spread your speech.
You do see the flaw with that, I would hope. As long as the political narrative is acceptable, or you didn't give someone booboo feelings you would get paid. Deviate from the straight and narrow, and you don't. And having an advertiser decide what is proper? I thought you far left people thought that companies are pretty amoral.
The actual problem is that the ads aren't very well targeted. You might get an ad for birth control on a fundamentalist Christian channel, or a gun control ad on a channel about target shooting or hunting. A male catheter commercial on a kid's channel, or a dating service on one of those MGTOW channels that trigger y'all so much. Do you want Hobby Lobby or Chic fil A dictating the content of videos?
They need to use demographics, just like regular Television has so successfully. Takes a bit of work, but not that hard.
The paradigm is broken. And instead of fixing it, they let any control they might have had slip away. Turning advertisers into the arbiters of taste and morality, and what is or is not acceptable won't work out too well, even if kowtowing to them is something you might agree with at the moment.
Fear not though - as often happens, the fix is pretty simple. These channels that make you crazy simply go out and find sponsors and embed their commercials right in the video. And being the sort of product that the likely viewers would be interested in, works a lot better. And the money goes directly to the content creator.
Good for the content creator, not so good for Google and Youtube. Now the complainers have to make a case for completely removing channels that apparently commit the crime of having an opinion the complainers don't like. It's kinda part and parcel of the subject of this story. The golden age is over.
Really, the lack of monetized MGTOW content is what has ruined YouTube?
Dare I say, whoosh? MGTOW is just an example of a fringey sort of group that falls outside of a narrative espoused by groups that want only one narrative. Innocent enough within itself, but verboten speech. There are other groups. I just chose one that apparently triggered you. But more on that below.
There is still plenty of good stuff on there. Loads of hobby related stuff, from woodworking to cooking to electronics.
Speaking of which, Cody's Lab has been demonetized. Just a guy who does chemistry type stuff. Hopefully that will make a less triggering sort of reference. But yeah, there is a lot of good stuff on Youtube like that. But the fact that there is good content does not detract from demands to control the narrative presented.
Also, why blame YouTube? It's the advertisers who are demanding this.
Because the process is completely broken. You are kinda an example of this. I mention MGTOW, and it triggers you. The process should be a lot more tailored. An ad for Burger King shouldn't be playing on a vegan channel, or a birth control ad on a fundamentalist religion channel. The effect is jarring, although sometimes hilarious. Television OTOH, uses demographics. Food and restaurant ads show up near mealtimes. Courtroom shows are a great example. Their commercials are aimed at the older audience that tends to watch these, and are loaded with prescription med ads, adult diaper ads, and other ads that might be of interest to the demographic.
The internet ad service paradigm is stupid, and about the only targeted ads are for things that someone has already bought.
Find some advertisers who are MGTOW friendly and get them to sign up to YouTube's ad programme, or directly sponsor the videos.
A lot of the channels have been demonetized based on triggered people's complaints, so it isn't just advertisers. But direct sponsorship has been the route taken, as well as patreon. And it turns out to be so superior to the Youtube model that it is part of the problems Youtube is having. Instead of some random and often jarring commercial popping up in the middle of a vid or other places, the targeted ads embedded within these demonetized channels are impossible to block, and tend to be of products that the audience is interested in. What is more, other than kicking the people directly off Youtube, which would be prima facie political narrative control, any control over the content is lost.
Ah, triggering. You seem to be on edge lately here, my friend, As the old saying goes:
I tried to point out the stars to you, but all you saw was the tip of my finger.
Youtube started heading downhill when they started freaking about ads on monetized pages. Advertisers started demanding that their ads only show up on videos that the advertiser agreed with the content in the video.
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.
While the concept of removing CO2 from the atmosphere might in some cases be smart, the concept of turning it into fuel ranks as really really stupid.
While a rapid increase in the level of CO2 is not good, because there is a problem with the ability of animals to adapt, using atmospheric CO2 derived fuel means a real disaster.
CO2 is not in itself, bad. In fact, we alomst certainly wouldn't be here without it, as the earth would be a very cold place.
So given that a fair number of people don't believe it has a heating effect, the same folks, might very well decide that removing it wouldn't cool the planet.
And using it as fuel means that once we start, there will be a lot of money spent lobbying to continue. If we were to somehow lower the CO2 to some agreed upon level, there will be powerful interests demanding to continue extraction.
Not saying it is or isn't - I don't know anything about it; just wanted to know why you think it is.
I don't think it is an industry association. But if they can suddenly claim that asymptomatic people are suffering from Alzheimer's, research money can be demanded.
The issue is that Alzheimer's is invariably fatal. The medicines used to treat it simply extend the inevitble timeline. This is like extending the timeline of incurable incendiary cancer. Live a few more months in terrible pain, allow your family to suffer as they see you suffer.
Ever see a lot of people with Alzheimer's? While some are happy, most are crying, miserable for the times they aren't asleep. So in addition to the drugs that merely slow the progression, they are miserable for that much longer. Fear not though, as other drugs can be administered that might take a little bit of the edge off that misery. This isn't like insulin. This is people who are already demented having the length of their dementia extended. And that means maybe another year on some mighty expensive drugs.
It doesn't have anything specific that is the fault of any association, it is the pharmaceutical industry, and the nursing industry that can realize increased profits the longer an Alzheimer's patient lives. Another year of life, and they can realize a hundred K or even much much more. The goal is to extract the patient's wealth, then after they are destitute, for them to die. I've seen it with family members. The last two years of my Mother in law's life cost $675,000 dollars for care, without the meds. With the meds, it was edging toward a million. There's a lot of money to be made by having people be ready to die, but extending that as long as possible.
While some folks seem to think I'm talking about a conspiracy, this is not. It is simply a successful and rather cruel business model that I have been though a few times. I dunno if any of y'all have gone through the US death business. Your retirement account is emptied, then any real estate you might have is sold and the proceeds go toward more upkeep. When you are finally destitute, the socialized medicine takes over, but it simply isn't as profitable as the rates they charge you while you have money. When they can, and if you appear to have afew more years in you, the for profit industry will ship you off to the county home. Your socialized medicine bed can be much more profitably filled with someone who still can pay full price.
There are a fair number of couples who divorce so that the interred person will be destitute and won't destroy the estate. That however, takes special conditions, where the patient is ill but still of sound mind, which is not the case for dementia.
And now, we have the real reason that single payer medicine is vehemently fought by one of the political parties in the US. There's too much money in it, and plenty of bribes to be made, and profit to be had.
Ever wondered if maybe it's you that have difficulty understanding the world rather than there being conspiracies everywhere?
You win the non-sequitur prize this morning for interpreting what I wrote as a conspiracy theory. It's just the economics of the medical industry in the US.
Cant say Iâ(TM)m agaisnt more funding for a cure or mitigation treatment. I saw a few people die of it and man itâ(TM)s not pretty in the last fee years. I mean its ok for a while but at some point if it was me Iâ(TM)d whish someone would pull the plug its just a farce.
We have legal medically assisted suicide here but you have to prove youâ(TM)re sound of mind so itâ(TM)s pretty much out of the window if you want to check out late and you cant ask for it in advance in a will or something. The lawâ(TM)s still new and people are fighting to change it but thereâ(TM)s a lot of logistic to build are making sure people dont bring relatives to have them killed to get their money.
In the USA, the scheme is to insure that your money is extracted before you die. So they will treat you with drugs that draw out the cognitive decline as much as possible. Then (conjecture here) when you have no more money to give the nursing home, they allow you to die.
Having seen the process firsthand with some family members, my hope is that if I come down with that, I can check out myself during the early stages. Getting to watch a loved one take 10 years to die, the last several as just a mindless money source for the death industry, I gotta say that is several orders of magnitude more stressful on a family than a quick exit. I figure I'll be doing my family a favor both emotionally and financially that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Crap - my relatives are really gonna miss those "What color dildo are you?" Facebook quizzes.
My wife tells me that my sister and the other female relatives are still going to these sites. No doubt there are ones for stupid narcissistic males as well.
Some people must think I do that too, because they all come up to me and ask "What kind of asshole are you Ol?
... and I can't shake the suspicion that there is a direct link here. I'm closing in on 50 and can observe the described decline in working memory first hand. It moves back and forth between being mildly annoying/funny and flat out scary.
What they have done is kind of like brainwaves on overdrive here. From perusing the article, I pick up on "theta".
Okay, here's a trick for you to try. Go to youtube and find theta waves. Here's one https://www.youtube.com/watch?... .
Note that all of the cosmic bullshit is bullshitty. But the effect isn't. The main different "brainwaves" are alpha, beta, and theta. There are other minor ones. Now wearing headphones - you have to wear headphones - you listen to the sound. A very simple one will have two sine waves at different frequencies that create a heterodyne. Theta is around 6-7 Hz. There are ones with music or ambient sounds as well.
I use it to relax - at least for theta. Alpha waves make me irritable. I don't have memory issues, but you might try it and see if you notice anything.
Anyhow, some new agers have co-opted a very interesting thing. This is no crystal harmonies or astral projection hoohaw. it is a way to relax. To me, a state of relaxed concentration is awesome.
The Loss of life will be catastrophic. It will also be real entertaining to watch the black box video of the last seconds on Youtube.
That's why it is better for the environment. A lot less people.
There are a lot of scientists with low or lacking ethics. They believe because they are scientists they can only do good and hence doing anything for grants is quite acceptable. Incidentally, you will also find quite a few that fake results and publish outright lies in this group.
Much better to trust politicians.
Given the math and the lawyers fees, it looks like the entire population of the world all owes the law firm Dewey, Cheatham and Hough a hundred dollars per person.
"Citizens should have full control over their own data" - now show me one single US entity (Corporation or Government for that matter) that will abide by such a concept. If we can't have anything close to this before AI, what dream world do you live in to apply this TO AI?
You forgot to mention the rest of the friggin world, dood!
Or is it just the US that triggers your spittle flecked rage?
So basically the same browser, only the telemetry is sent to Microsoft and Bing is the default search engine? Oh boy, where do I sign up?
More likely, to both Microsoft and Google.
Profit used to come from growth and expanding into new markets. But now there is nowhere left for them to grow, so they start to focus on saving inward. It is a completely different phase of capitalism.
I've always called it the K-Mart effect. At one time, K-Mart was the uncontested king of retail sales. They were growing and growing hard. And there was no stopping them.
Then when they started pushing the limits of just how many stores they could build, and the limits of what might be called "growth profit", they showed all the signs of trying to increase profits via the bean counters. Weird stuff, like requiring you to stop at the service desk to get the check you would pay with pre-approved. And at that time, a lot more people payed by check. They made several different sub-stores, and heaven help you if someone made a mistake at the checkout counter, it apparently required a special person from the particular sub store to fix the problem. And of course, they started getting rid of as many people as possible, so you would have 50 people in line for one poor checkout clerk, and any issues had to be taken care of by the top manager at the store.
All at the express orders of the bean counters, who seem to think that a company can cannibalize itself to success.
So people simply stopped shopping at K-Mart while it ate itself from within. They started shopping at Wal Mart.
Which is now in the process of cannibalizing itself. Another company will probably come along.
Unless we shift to cannibalizing ourselves, metaphorically or literally. Countries can do the same as businesses. We are not automating to create jobs - we are now automating to destroy them.
The question is will we deal with the resulting life changes for people in a civilized way, or will we embark on the most destructive depopulation the world has ever known? My cynical mind says we're going to have a really nasty version of the second.
Bravo! How long were you waiting in the wings with that one??
Sooo very long! I crossed one off the bucket list today.
Certainly they are capable of being jerks. That does not absolve you of being creepy.
Ahhhh, good old manshaming. A woman on Tinder would never consider me as creepy, because I would not interact with one. Because Tinder itself is inherently pretty creepy. I'd no more go there for hookups than I would go to look for dates at a stripper bar.
The very idea of arranging a "date" with a person you have never met, only through a photo and self- description is pretty weird, and smacks of terrible and sad desperation.
Let me try your shaming tactic here...... If your standards are that low, then have at it.
Then Marx was mostly right about capitalism.
He gets high Marx on his insight?
I'll just show myself out.......
Not as long as they are part of a market where they "have to" make more profit.
But that's never going to change. People are greedy and those that make more profit can afford more nice things.
This isn't likely to end well. First thing is, we need to understand the goal of waves of automation.
As an example, the industrial revolution wasn't designed to eliminate people doing work. Even though it ran concurrently with a lesser need for farmers, the goal was an increase in productivity. A displaced farmer might just slide over into a factory job.
The specific goal of this automation effort is to replace "expensive" labor with a less expensive way to accomplish the same work.
So if more human jobs are created, the automation revolution has failed.
My own concerns are that with perhaps 90 percent of humanity rendered unemployable because they are humans, that society is going to have to adjust two things:
Goods and services produced will have some disruption because there will be an ever dwindling market for those goods and services.
That 90 percent of zero value humanity will need addressed. With humans in the loop, that suggests to me that the excess humanity will be eliminated. Probably not in a peaceful manner either.
Fact is, in an automated economy, we simply do not need heading toward 8 billion people http://www.worldometers.info/w...
There are peaceful ways to achieve this depopulation, but humans seldom do things in a peaceful manner. We're going to be damn lucky if we don't bring about our own extinction in the depop wars.
Surely we are at peak "calling everyone fascist" by now. Show of hands, who here has never been called a fascist? Socialists called George Orwell a fascist...while he was himself a socialist. While he was fighting literal fascists in Spain.
He was working as fascist he could!
The first one to scream mahhhhhhh rights. But bends over and takes the google dick in his ass like a champ. Well played sir.
Goatseeeeee!!!
But he has awesome mental arguments with me in his head. Oddly enough, he's lost a few of them
You do see the flaw with that, I would hope. As long as the political narrative is acceptable, or you didn't give someone booboo feelings you would get paid. Deviate from the straight and narrow, and you don't.
That's one of the most warped and entitled things I've ever read. No, nothing at all gives you a RIGHT to get paid for your speech.
I don't think I've ever noted that I thought it was a right. Youtube could decide tomorrow that no males were allowed, or no females were allowed, or that all content people have to make a donation to the NRA, or Join the Rosicrucians.
That is Youtube's right. People have the right to say what they think of that though That is a right that the responders have. Works both ways. I thinnk you are having imaginary arguments with me.
They need to use demographics, just like regular Television has so successfully. Takes a bit of work, but not that hard.
No you don't get it. It's their money, they don't need to do anything.
Why do you keep telling other people what to do with their money? Are you a communist or something?
It is rather amusing that you claim that I don't "get it". I do get many things. Demographics allow a venue showing advertising to show advertisements tailored to their likely audience. They aren't forced to do that. But it's hard to imagine male catheter ads being shown on Teletubbies. Confuses the kids, and annoys the parents.
When Papa John Schnatter went far right wing nut during the 2008 elections, and when he doubled down on his inanity, he caused a lot of damage to the Papa John's Pizza brand. Sales dropped, and when he made some disparging remarks about dark pigmented people of African descent in a freaking recorded call for chrissakes - he was removed from his position. Did he have the tight to do all that? Oh hell yeah. Were the shareholders happy? O hell no!
When Hobby Lobby fought tooth and nail in the courts to refuse to pay for birth control, and eventually the supreme court decided that they had the right to do that - it harmed their business, even though they had an apparent God given right to do the best to make certain every sperm and egg resulted in a birth.
Alex Jones, who is one brain cell away from playing with his poo, managed to lose a lot of money after saying crazy shit. Impressive for a guy whose business is saying crazy shit. My examples are mostly right wingers, but Youtube is showing it isn't immune to the rule by virtue of being left wing.
Intelligent businesses and corporations realize that Pizza and health care packages shouoldn't be attached to political or religious beliefs. That is a sound business decision, one that shareholders appreciate.
Once you start making political decisions that are completely unrelated to your business, you'll piss off about half of everyone. And that's your right. Smart people understand that everyone's money is worth the same, and deciding that you are going to spout off about your thoughts on border walls, birth control, third wave feminists, or men who prefer to remain single, you start making political judgments.
But hey - it's your right. It's your money. If you are okay on telling a large part of your audience to FOAD because "Muh Rights!" by all means do . No argument there. I had great enjoyment watching Papa John and his self inflicted financial wounds and the loss of his position. And Alex Jones is just a gift that keeps on giving. It's all just popcorn and tequila to me. So is responding to your posts, until I get bored. So keep those coming.
Cody's Lab was temporarily banned from uploading new videos because he microwaved some fruit flies. Microwaving insects is not allowed on YouTube.
So are experiments on drosophila illegal or something? Oh, Youtube must have shit their panties when Mythbusters did some experiments on honeybees and water/alcohol.
Youtube has videos on termite control. They actually kill those innocent little termites. Time to kick 'em off.
Have you got any *good* examples? There are plenty of fuck-ups on YouTube's end, I'm just questioning he premise that it's the lack of monetization that is causing the problems right now. I'd say it's the copyright enforcement system they are using, and the recommendation system.
You remind me of a guy who once worked for me. instead of conversations, he would listen for a trigger word, the pounce on it to start an argument with me. He'd lose the whole point of the conversation, by trying to make himself look smart. It did eventually cost him his job.
Yes, Youtube has a number of problems. Almost all big problems have multiple causes.
I take it that I am not supposed to point out one of them? Or are you saying that demonitization is not a problem? Well, I had a Youtube channel for a while that was demonitized for not having enough subscriptions, which was pretty obvious since it was just started a few weeks prior. Nothing remotely controversial, just instructional videos. So I stopped producing them.
Yeah -that was a problem as well. Copyright issues are a problem. Attempted redefinitions of "fair use" are a problem. Ad content is a problem. Apparently, controversial marial that triggers some folks and have them attempt to take down or demonitize channels is not, will not, and cannot ever be a problem. Perhaps you should make a listing of allowable examples, and demand they be excluded from discussion. After all, if people say things that do not fit your narrative, those opinions must be suppressed.
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.
Wow thats pretty entitled. It's not enough to have free speech. It's not even enough to be given a free platform on which to share your speech. No, you're going to whine if you're not actually PIAD by a big company to spread your speech.
You do see the flaw with that, I would hope. As long as the political narrative is acceptable, or you didn't give someone booboo feelings you would get paid. Deviate from the straight and narrow, and you don't. And having an advertiser decide what is proper? I thought you far left people thought that companies are pretty amoral.
The actual problem is that the ads aren't very well targeted. You might get an ad for birth control on a fundamentalist Christian channel, or a gun control ad on a channel about target shooting or hunting. A male catheter commercial on a kid's channel, or a dating service on one of those MGTOW channels that trigger y'all so much. Do you want Hobby Lobby or Chic fil A dictating the content of videos?
They need to use demographics, just like regular Television has so successfully. Takes a bit of work, but not that hard.
The paradigm is broken. And instead of fixing it, they let any control they might have had slip away. Turning advertisers into the arbiters of taste and morality, and what is or is not acceptable won't work out too well, even if kowtowing to them is something you might agree with at the moment.
Fear not though - as often happens, the fix is pretty simple. These channels that make you crazy simply go out and find sponsors and embed their commercials right in the video. And being the sort of product that the likely viewers would be interested in, works a lot better. And the money goes directly to the content creator.
Good for the content creator, not so good for Google and Youtube. Now the complainers have to make a case for completely removing channels that apparently commit the crime of having an opinion the complainers don't like. It's kinda part and parcel of the subject of this story. The golden age is over.
Really, the lack of monetized MGTOW content is what has ruined YouTube?
Dare I say, whoosh? MGTOW is just an example of a fringey sort of group that falls outside of a narrative espoused by groups that want only one narrative. Innocent enough within itself, but verboten speech. There are other groups. I just chose one that apparently triggered you. But more on that below.
There is still plenty of good stuff on there. Loads of hobby related stuff, from woodworking to cooking to electronics.
Speaking of which, Cody's Lab has been demonetized. Just a guy who does chemistry type stuff. Hopefully that will make a less triggering sort of reference. But yeah, there is a lot of good stuff on Youtube like that. But the fact that there is good content does not detract from demands to control the narrative presented.
Also, why blame YouTube? It's the advertisers who are demanding this.
Because the process is completely broken. You are kinda an example of this. I mention MGTOW, and it triggers you. The process should be a lot more tailored. An ad for Burger King shouldn't be playing on a vegan channel, or a birth control ad on a fundamentalist religion channel. The effect is jarring, although sometimes hilarious. Television OTOH, uses demographics. Food and restaurant ads show up near mealtimes. Courtroom shows are a great example. Their commercials are aimed at the older audience that tends to watch these, and are loaded with prescription med ads, adult diaper ads, and other ads that might be of interest to the demographic.
The internet ad service paradigm is stupid, and about the only targeted ads are for things that someone has already bought.
Find some advertisers who are MGTOW friendly and get them to sign up to YouTube's ad programme, or directly sponsor the videos.
A lot of the channels have been demonetized based on triggered people's complaints, so it isn't just advertisers. But direct sponsorship has been the route taken, as well as patreon. And it turns out to be so superior to the Youtube model that it is part of the problems Youtube is having. Instead of some random and often jarring commercial popping up in the middle of a vid or other places, the targeted ads embedded within these demonetized channels are impossible to block, and tend to be of products that the audience is interested in. What is more, other than kicking the people directly off Youtube, which would be prima facie political narrative control, any control over the content is lost.
Ah, triggering. You seem to be on edge lately here, my friend, As the old saying goes:
I tried to point out the stars to you, but all you saw was the tip of my finger.
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.
While a rapid increase in the level of CO2 is not good, because there is a problem with the ability of animals to adapt, using atmospheric CO2 derived fuel means a real disaster.
CO2 is not in itself, bad. In fact, we alomst certainly wouldn't be here without it, as the earth would be a very cold place.
So given that a fair number of people don't believe it has a heating effect, the same folks, might very well decide that removing it wouldn't cool the planet.
And using it as fuel means that once we start, there will be a lot of money spent lobbying to continue. If we were to somehow lower the CO2 to some agreed upon level, there will be powerful interests demanding to continue extraction.
Why do you feel that Alzheimer's Association is an industry organization? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not saying it is or isn't - I don't know anything about it; just wanted to know why you think it is.
I don't think it is an industry association. But if they can suddenly claim that asymptomatic people are suffering from Alzheimer's, research money can be demanded. The issue is that Alzheimer's is invariably fatal. The medicines used to treat it simply extend the inevitble timeline. This is like extending the timeline of incurable incendiary cancer. Live a few more months in terrible pain, allow your family to suffer as they see you suffer.
Ever see a lot of people with Alzheimer's? While some are happy, most are crying, miserable for the times they aren't asleep. So in addition to the drugs that merely slow the progression, they are miserable for that much longer. Fear not though, as other drugs can be administered that might take a little bit of the edge off that misery. This isn't like insulin. This is people who are already demented having the length of their dementia extended. And that means maybe another year on some mighty expensive drugs.
It doesn't have anything specific that is the fault of any association, it is the pharmaceutical industry, and the nursing industry that can realize increased profits the longer an Alzheimer's patient lives. Another year of life, and they can realize a hundred K or even much much more. The goal is to extract the patient's wealth, then after they are destitute, for them to die. I've seen it with family members. The last two years of my Mother in law's life cost $675,000 dollars for care, without the meds. With the meds, it was edging toward a million. There's a lot of money to be made by having people be ready to die, but extending that as long as possible.
While some folks seem to think I'm talking about a conspiracy, this is not. It is simply a successful and rather cruel business model that I have been though a few times. I dunno if any of y'all have gone through the US death business. Your retirement account is emptied, then any real estate you might have is sold and the proceeds go toward more upkeep. When you are finally destitute, the socialized medicine takes over, but it simply isn't as profitable as the rates they charge you while you have money. When they can, and if you appear to have afew more years in you, the for profit industry will ship you off to the county home. Your socialized medicine bed can be much more profitably filled with someone who still can pay full price.
There are a fair number of couples who divorce so that the interred person will be destitute and won't destroy the estate. That however, takes special conditions, where the patient is ill but still of sound mind, which is not the case for dementia.
And now, we have the real reason that single payer medicine is vehemently fought by one of the political parties in the US. There's too much money in it, and plenty of bribes to be made, and profit to be had.
I think the idea is to get treated before the symptoms manifest themselves.
And what would that treatment be?
Ever wondered if maybe it's you that have difficulty understanding the world rather than there being conspiracies everywhere?
You win the non-sequitur prize this morning for interpreting what I wrote as a conspiracy theory. It's just the economics of the medical industry in the US.
Cant say Iâ(TM)m agaisnt more funding for a cure or mitigation treatment. I saw a few people die of it and man itâ(TM)s not pretty in the last fee years. I mean its ok for a while but at some point if it was me Iâ(TM)d whish someone would pull the plug its just a farce. We have legal medically assisted suicide here but you have to prove youâ(TM)re sound of mind so itâ(TM)s pretty much out of the window if you want to check out late and you cant ask for it in advance in a will or something. The lawâ(TM)s still new and people are fighting to change it but thereâ(TM)s a lot of logistic to build are making sure people dont bring relatives to have them killed to get their money.
In the USA, the scheme is to insure that your money is extracted before you die. So they will treat you with drugs that draw out the cognitive decline as much as possible. Then (conjecture here) when you have no more money to give the nursing home, they allow you to die.
Having seen the process firsthand with some family members, my hope is that if I come down with that, I can check out myself during the early stages. Getting to watch a loved one take 10 years to die, the last several as just a mindless money source for the death industry, I gotta say that is several orders of magnitude more stressful on a family than a quick exit. I figure I'll be doing my family a favor both emotionally and financially that way.
Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp? Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?