ayo south your whining bitch

my uncle works for google

Reported.

for giving me an opinion? isnt that what you want?

It's the internet, not just YT.

There is still a difference between gaining attention by crying loud and actively shutting down opinions that you don't like.

reported

What a great time to be alive \o/

Is it a moba?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_collaborators_(East_Germany)

sounds a lot like quake champions.

INTERNET YOUTUBE EMPOWERS MORONS

yup.

I like how they disabled comments on that video

i am actually more turned off by general lack of substance in the videos on youtube, most videos seem like just viewer grabbers and if you look at most popular videos they aren't really the best material that you would want to see.

Yea many popular channels are purely there for the purpose of making money. A bad mix of clickbaits and scripted content. But with a bit of digging you can still find the good stuff.

However, the new demonetization filtering system and the upcoming wave of 'youtube heroes' shutting videos down clearly shows that youtube aims at mainstream money-making videos.

But from what I recall youtube started with home-made cat videos, does that qualify as substance? :D

yeah i mean a few years ago youtube was actually fun to watch, now its purely cheap entertainment content on par with tv reality shows or even worse. the problem is how the videos get sorted and prioritized and most of the videos seem really arbitrarily being put at the front page based on some teenager click rating. there definitely should be a stricter control rating system set up by some people with common sense who wouldn't rate a video based on how much money it would make but whether or not the video is actually worth watching.

implying that Google didn't buy Youtube as a future cash cow

i think its more of an instrument to control popular opinion as well as money cash cow. google needs to manipulate the mass opinion to probably influence their future buying decisions or decisions in general including politics etc.

Same with Facebook. I don't think they are necessarily interested in steering politics (at least at this point), but it definitely puts them into a position of power.


Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36528256

ofc its not as overt as some tv army recruiting video but stories and people who get promoted to the front page may be greatly controlled with a press of a button, and over time people get brainwashed to the point that they think that the decisions and opinions that they watched for years on the internet are their own.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/m...guidelines

It's there. Many people defended their editorial rights to do this, not realizing what this kind of monopoly on information spread would do.

It's generally troubling to use facebook or similar social media for news even if FB didn't do this. The algorithms are there to make you happy / visit the social network more. How do you do that? Make you engaged, happy, wanting to come for me. Not stressed about news you dislike. How do you do that? Feed you news you'll like, hide news you won't like. Isolate you, make you consume rather than educate yourself. Because this pattern is so attractive to any social network, it's impossible to not optimize for it, even unwittingly.

Internet could have been a tool for political freedom. Instead, things like social networks are just polarizing and brainwashing users even more.

The solution is simple, predictable algorithms that the user chooses to show him news, like RSS feeds. And an understanding that if you haven't heard an argument made in its strongest from, by a person who believes in it, then you haven't heard it at all.

Same as TV and all other "art" forms.

You've clearly not actually understood the video, you're not going to just be able to mass flag shit, there's a strict criteria involved, this move from youtube is just make the site a more content friendly beast and getting people involved.

Do you really believe that youtube has the manpower to judge each mass flagging individually? And even then, it is arguable what counts as 'offensive' or 'abusive' content.

Even big (in every sense hehe) youtubers like boogie2988 got their videos on serious topics such as suicide, rape or abuse demonetized by an automatic filtering algorithm.

To me that is a clear signal for what kind of content youtube wants. I think you are naive to believe that youtube will protect smaller channels which got flagged by triggered SJW/whatever people.

I'm too lazy to respond to you appropriately so this video ironically sums up how the advertising works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-AsnDvhKr4

tl;dr - it's not Youtube who make the decisions regarding adverts - it's the people paying (advertisers) who have a say where they want their content to be advertised - An advertiser gives youtube said criteria for their adverts and the algorithm goes to work - You can also appeal your demonetized content and also have it reversed. So I don't see why people are getting so pissy about it. Don't want to get flagged? Don't make shit content?

As for manpower - that's probably the main focus in this project is to create enough "youtube hero" people to go around and keep it "ethical" I dunno - Youtube changes their ToS a lot.

Don't want to get flagged? Don't make shit content?

Yea that logic is completely flawless because we all have the same understanding on what shit content is.

I am glad though that you put "ethical" in quotation marks.

You clearly don't use Youtube often then, go watch all of those troll channels that basically shit talk everyone and just make up random bullshit - that is shit content, naming a few like Leafy and Keemstar - Two biggest cancers of Youtube which has then garnered the reputation of having all their followers go down and shut down other Youtube channels because they go out in their 100's of thousands and flag the smaller Youtubers content - Shitpost and downvote everything etc.

So yes unless you get off on that type of content and hatebullshit then the definition of shit content is pure and simple to understand by 99% of the internet. So yes my logic is flawless thanks for the compliment.

I read your post three times now and I still don't get how a big crowd of morons bullying smaller channels should show me that introducing Youtube heroes is a good idea. If anything, then it supports my main headline.

Or is the plan to set up an army of white knights who then flag Leafy & co's videos as a revenge?

I don't watch that Leafy crap but I see the same happening with vegans vs meat-eaters (or murderer rapists as they call them), feminists vs anti-feminists, Trump supporters vs Hillary supporters, pro-abortion vs abortion is murder, and so on.

The Youtube heroes program is meant to support the mods with removing content that violates the ToS, not what one group or another personally classifies as shitcontent.

There might be content on which 99% agree that it is shit. But you also have content which 50% find shit and which 50% support.

Regardless of the implementation of the system - Content driven websites will always be subjective - It'll end up bombing like their Youtube Red idea, if it does make it as a main thing there will be a lot of friction. It's general evolution, at the surface level there does seem to be a lot of trollery and bullshit on Youtube but there are a massive number behind the scenes who don't want the site to crash and burn.

Looks like they took lessons from Stack Overflow, which has a very similar system. And of course, it's also absolutely terrible. Youtube, being the idiots that they are, would not take lessons from a good system.

agreed