Bitcoin Forum

I am sure a lot of you have heard about this, but since the legacy media can't compete with the alternative media, they have opted to attack their ability to not only present their views, but earn a living from doing so. People are so hungry for truth and so tired of the old dried out turd that is the MSM, they literally can not compete with a guy in his garage on his web cam. This is only going to get worse, not just in the digital sphere, but in meat space.

They started with the fringes, now they are moving into quite main stream commentators. They are crafting a Communist style system of political correctness, and anyone who doesn't comply will be unpersoned and cut off from using the banking system, from transportation, from internet platforms, and even the ability to earn a living. Prepare yourselves, because when you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.

And who owns Youtube?

Googlag

And since there's a lag between slow government operations and corrections and the speed at which GoogleYoutube can make changes, they are starting now on their plan to influence the 2020 elections.

They will go all out to attempt to get their candidate to win, figuring that they can't be stopped in the time frame in which the election happens.

Assuming they succeed, they'll put into effect the plan they intended for 2016.

That's what we got.

lol "good quality". If it was good quality they wouldn't have to burn their competition off of the platform, they would have organic viewership. This is the corporate media desperately gasping for air before it drowns in a lake of it's own bullshit.

"Hate speech" is a really anti-freedom concept which too often amounts to just "unpopular speech". Unfortunately, a lot of people believe in the idea, on both the political left and right. In the end, YouTube may end up losing too many creators with these kinds of actions, and they may suffer financially for it. YouTube Premium's original series for example are all completely soulless corporate boardroom creations -- if that's what they envision as YouTube's future, then they're going to be out-competed eventually.

If I was YouTube, I would make in-house monetization much more selective, but give creators the ability to add their own advertising using the exact same systems (eg. text pop-ups, wait-5-seconds, sidebar ads, etc.) for a monthly fee dependent on the view count. Then all creators would have the option of negotiating ads out-of-band, and YouTube could more reasonably position itself as just a platform.

Are there any good YouTube alternatives? https://d.tube/ is one which seems vaguely decentralized, though its underlying steem and ipfs platforms are naïve "do the first thing which comes to mind" systems. I have zero confidence in the robustness of these systems, and it's not even a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation, since dtube is also pretty janky. It's disappointing, though I guess there just aren't enough people interested in this stuff to put enough man-hours into it.

I really doubt that YouTube is bad enough at this point for any centralized YouTube clone to become popular enough to be profitable. Delivering video is expensive, dealing with copyright complaints is expensive, and YouTube has the advantage of a huge historical library, a pretty good AI, and network effect. IMO you could throw $100 million at the problem and still not out-compete YouTube at this point, unfortunately.

Dtube is not really a viable alternative and I say that as a massive fan of the Steem platform in general.
You cannot watch videos that are older than 7 days and the underlying system for uploading and automatically converting videos leaves much to be desired.

I think LBRY is doing a much better job in that regard, even though monetization is still somewhat of a problem.
There you can instantly back up your entire Youtube account and receive LBRY credits for it, depending on how many Youtube subscribers you have.

You can easily watch older videos (contrary to Dtube) & people can tip video creators with the free LBRY credits they receive.

Mind you, LBRY is created as a protocol, any service, app or website can make use of LBRY. It's completely open-source as well.

More info here:
https://lbry.com/
https://spee.ch/about
https://lbry.com/news (regular updates)

I think people have come to notice that no one on the internet is as good for video streaming. Youtube and Google may have their flaws, but all the good content is on youtube -- it's the only place you can go if you want to make any money making content.

The alternatives don't have that yet, you can't make any money at all on other platforms and their payments are shoddy at best (this is being compared to youtube competitors, not youtube live competitors like twitch)

Youtube should really open up their advertising platform, and allow people to make money with their own ads on their own video -- though I don't think Youtube wants this as it opens up an issue of if they should also be censoring the ads that are on their platform which arent their ads. Should they be taking a cut of these ads as well? I would think yes, but what's a fair number.

Many things to think about, and I don't think Google wants to spend the money at the moment to fix this issue -- they would rather just demonetize and move on. It's a lot easier and cheaper, less media coverage.

I think both of you are largely missing the point. This is not about profit, this is about power and control. Just look at the classic corporate media. Are they profitable? Hell no. They are subsidized and exist because they serve and deliver certain narratives that give those in power more control. They do this at the cost of their reputation and their bottom line because they are now completely dependent on these subsidies. This is about maintaining propaganda, not profit. Everyone is losing their minds because Russia bought some Facefuck ads, meanwhile these companies are very openly meddling in our election process by silencing anything but the corporate mainstream narrative. I am sure it is just a total coincidence that so many of them are so cozy with China. BUT MUH RUSSIA COLLUSION!

EDIT: http://www.bitchute.com seems to be the leading alternative video platform of choice so far.
Related article: https://off-guardian.org/2019/06/05/youtubes-latest-purge/

This is just the beginning of the #VoxAdpocalypse . The thing is you can't please these people. They simply move on to the next target. They're rotten up there.

I'm not a subber but The Quartering always gets recommended and just a while ago he talked about a guy who followed his channel for several months taking note of the advertisers and then going after them to harass them and force them to drop him.

Between that and the waman who stabbed herself to teleport away from America, you can see the range of derangement of the people we're dealing with.


The formerly Do No Evil guys. The ones that caused a controversy by firing an employee over a memo about male and female differences.  ;D


I remember reading a year ago about LBRY, has anyone here uploaded anything there? I haven't bothered with the site and only traded their coin but I'm considering alternatives to Youtube.

YouTube has begun to censor mainstream political voices they do not agree with.

YouTube is censoring videos and channels that align with 30% (https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx) of Voters, based on Gallop poll party self identification data, and the majority of American voters based on the 2016 presidential election results. Yet, by one metric, YouTube has a >76% market share (https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/online-video/youtube-market-share), and by another metric, Google has a >90% market share (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-retains-more-than-90-of-market-share-2018-4/).

I do not believe YouTube is censoring these political voices because they fear loosing advertisers, they wish to influence political opinions, and how Americans think. If conservative voices cannot speak, or be easily heard, they have no opportunity to convince other voters to change their own opinions.

Only a small number of people are being censored, but the message is being heard, loud and clear by many others who are not being censored. The message being heard is, if you run a successful YouTube channel with a conservative voice, you run the risk of being censored. Being that many who run successful YouTube channels earn a living, in large part by ad revenue from their YouTube videos, those with conservative beliefs, will choose to either move the viewpoints of their channels to the left, or will move the content of their channels away from politics in order to save their income. Trying to move their channel to other video streaming sites will only result in the channel authors from loosing out on the majority of their income. Most people will choose to choose to stay with Google so they can continue feeding their family.

There is nothing free market about this. It is incredibly ironic that Google announced (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/06/our-ongoing-work-to-tackle-hate.html) their censorship only one day after the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square (https://www.state.gov/on-the-30th-anniversary-of-tiananmen-square/).

Those being censored by YouTube do not have "unpopular" speech, they have speech that YouTube does not like.

I bet those cunts probably wanted to do it the day of, and some PR weasel had to talk them out of it.

I would consider both to be very similar. Both are telling that dissent is not allowed nor will be tolerated, and the intent is to get more people to speak in line with "official messaging" 

Another related article: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/06/journalist-and-educator-among-those-caught-youtubes-latest-attempt-purge-online-hate

Not true though, a good amount of media companies in the age of Trump -- which caused a LARGE spike in ratings and people watching, were able to turn some pretty large profits. Look at a company like CNN, who racked in $600m in operating profits for the year (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/awful-ratings-record-profits-whats-cnns-secret/258477/)

Other companies are also pulling in some pretty hefty profits as well - NY Times https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-times-posts-higher-profit-adds-223-000-digital-subscribers-11557335720 and so on and so forth.

These companies aren't subsidized, they're making money.

I think you are forgetting you are dealing with people who are full of shit for a living. You might want to read these links explaining this paradox.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/cutbacks-at-cnn-highlight-the-cable-news-paradox/

https://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/audience-revenue/#fn-42401-12


They burnt their own reputability for those short term viewers, now is when they pay the piper. As the links explain they largely rely on licensing packages signed when they had much higher viewership. That will eventually change as the trend continues. In short, they are running on fumes of triumphs past.

I knew some of the guys who started Youtube.  Former co-workers of mine and decent folks.  They were legitimately proud of their accomplishments in creating the platform, and of the technical feats given that CPU and bandwidth dynamics were much different back then than they are today.

Even some time after they were gobbled up by Google they maintained a fair degree of autonomy I think, and some pride and vision for the platform they created.

I have to guess that the originals are probably mostly gone.  That seems pretty common for startup personnel who are sucked in, and it tends to be the person's choice to move on.  If I had been one of the original Youtube people I'd now be spitting on the ground every time I heard the word given what Google has finally managed to do to the platform.  The only consultation is that it took them many many years to degenerate Youtube to it's current level.  The other consolation, of course, would be the big pay-day the people got, and probably the fond memories of the hectic period as a startup.

I bet the people who started Youtube never dreamed that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith would be editing their content in order to protect the ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine.  But there it is.

I see, this does make some sense. Though I still do think that they're going to be profitable for sometime. It seems like they're still able to get cable companies to pay more and more for their channels, which is even listed in the pew article you listed. I think that this could come under attack if viewership continues to falter (as licensing fee increases, may not always be able to cover advertising declines) and if people continue to move away from cable at a faster and faster rate then licensing fees are going to shrink.

This isn't just a problem with one news company though, this is something for EVERY channel.

I used to run channels on the original Youtube. One of them even got some mainstream media attention. The day they rolled out Googlag Plus and demanded your phone number to log in I never logged in again, even after they removed the requirement. What Youtube is today is nothing more than a pathetic proxy for the dying corporate media. It is not Youtube any more, it is the BoobTube. It is to the point where I can't even find any content I like any more and if I do you can bet the next video in the suggested feed will be Fox News, MSNBC, or Toe Rogan. As some one who grew up along side the internet, I am totally ashamed of what we have allowed it to become.



Yes, but as you stated, cable providers are hemorrhaging subscribers, and soon those licensing contracts will need to be renegotiated. That is when the falling viewership will really start hurting them. I agree, this is a problem basically for the entire corporate media. This is one of the main reasons this is such a coordinated purge of independent media, because they literally can not compete, so they have to de-platform or destroy them. This happens to align with some political motives for taking control of the narrative for the 2020 elections as well, so there are a lot of those swamp creatures pulling the strings behind the scenes as well. Finally, a lot of these companies were knowingly complicit in what is tantamount to treason, and they know it. They have been caught red handed, and their only hope is to get friendlies in power to make it all go away. This is not just about profits or politics, this is about escaping the end of a rope or life in pound me in the ass federal prison.

I hope they're not losing sleep at night seeing what's happening. Would be nice if people like those can band together and make an alternative. If some of the founders of these new platform are some of the original guys that developed Youtube, Google might have a hard time discrediting them since they can bad mouth Google, just like what Zuck's co-founder did recently.

I doubt that they are.  People mostly move on and forget about stuff I think.  Probably many/most tech people in their hearts distrust and dislike the tech whales, and when your project and works are swallowed up you kind of expect the worst.  Eventually.  Plus, you always get your pay-out.  Back when Youtube was gobbled I imagine that a lot of them did see it as a growth path (which may have been unworkable without Google's strength due to network issues) and it was also the case that Google was kind of a different company back then I believe.  The 'don't be evil' thing probably really was the predominant attitude.  At least on the worker-bee level.  I doubt that very many people at all can bring themselves to even pretend on that one any more.

I'm not convinced "demonetization" is a problem.

The vacuum that's created when Youtube cuts off peoples' income stream creates a huge business opportunity for other startups.

The censorship will likely backfire.

This is going to head to a Supreme Court decision on what these companies are and what they can do. Are they private companies, that can do anything they want?

I don't think it's going to turn out that way, any more than a black man can be kicked out of a store because it's a "private business."

You might have a point if it was not totally arbitrary how they enforce it. They are demonetizing totally innocuous videos and channels, meanwhile videos with actual calls to violence are still A-OK. This is opening them up to massive lawsuits among other things.

Arbitrary always follows censor.

Obviously the world is not better off if a group of people in San Francisco and San Jose determine what they can see on Youtube.

I wonder if a user / group consensus on such decisions is possible. It works with Wikipedia.

Youtube is known for its censorship and shady tactics. I remember when a local guy who openly criticized politics said that YT is unsubscribing people from his channel and people who were subbed were writing him messages that suddenly yt unsubbed them and they had to press the button again. Demonetization is just another move towards silencing youtubers. It used to be that a video had to be original to be monetized and the subjects was unimportant. You could talk about a pimple on your butt and get it monetized. Now you have to be politically correct.

They can do anything they want, within the confines of the law.

The more important questions are, 1 in light of their recent activity, are they a "platform" hosting content published by others, or a "publisher", and 2, is their (recent) activity anti-competitive to the extent they are violating anti-trust laws.

There are many mainstream media outlets, such as bloomberg and forbes that hire independent contractors to write articles on their websites, and despite this relationship, the outlets remain to be publishers. This is true even if the editors do not direct the writers to write about certain topics.

Youtube is my the website I spend the most time on,  I wish there was a viable alternative but there really isn't.  Others have mentioned dtube but it heavily fails when put up against Youtube.  Some of my favorite creators already got demonetized by Youtube for speaking out against mainstream beliefs.  Anything they don't agree with is "hate speech" which is ridiculous. 

Bitchute isn't horrible, but not quite the level of usability you would want quite yet.

Related Article: "The Trust Project: Big Media and Silicon Valley’s Weaponized Algorithms Silence Dissent"

https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-trust-project-big-media-and-silicon-valleys-weaponized-algorithms-silence-dissent/259030/

That was what we all predicted.

Although, to be fair, we can't even trust independent creators and political commentators either blindly just like mainstream media. The reasoning is they are often also biased according to their personal preference or even monetary gains from any particular party.

However, whatever maybe the reason, we need to have independent journalism free from establishment funding and only direct funding from the people. Sadly, to raise a huge monetary benefit, the independent creators cater to a certain particular section and becomes biased, but it is much much better than mainstream medias with agendas because mainstream media has a more outreach and can convince their agendas as facts.

I would love to see a decentralized platform but still that would make it terribly difficult for real and authentic to compete with spams and fake news in a similar manner. The best alternative will be to enable direct public monetization for these independent creators so it stays free from all establishment influences :)

This is an outcome of the recent Law that passed from the European Parliament about the copyrights.
Prolly youtube is trying to establish a new policy that it will affect all the Youtube community and not only the European one.

The censorship has nothing to do with copyright nor any Europe law. It is primarily affecting right wing vloggers. It is a way to move the opinion of the population to the left.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-10/facebook-has-banned-word-honk-violating-their-community-standards

If you can't see this is all about maintaining a propaganda narrative, you aren't paying attention.

Haha, they literally got rid of that motto that some call them "Do Evil" now.  ;D

Still, wishing those devs would eventually get involved in a competing project. I see many Youtubers mentioning Bitchute right now. That's nice but I think we need more than one alternative.


"If you think this will have a happy ending, you were not paying attention"

Hoping this will bite them back in the ass big time.

I would say two things on this:

1)  Normally when a start-up is acquired those who take their pay-out are legally obligated to stay our of the field and not compete for a period of time.

2)  Technology is such that it can be the case that at an architect level, _having_ domain experience can be a negative.  The 'old dog, new tricks' phenomenon.  There can be better ways of doing things which don't really occur to people who are used to doing things in a particular way.

That said, I'm pretty sure that had I been an early Youtube employee, I would be so pissed off at Google's perversion of the platform that I would do anything I could the help out the competition.  Probably for free if I didn't need the money.

It isn't only Youtube. It's a whole bunch of them.

They have their reasons because of the big people who run them and bribe them. But the some of the stuff they have banned isn't believed by much of the general public, anyway.

There are companies, groups and individuals all over the place who are starting small companies like Youtube and Facebook... companies that will accept what is banned by Youtube. All you have to do is look for them. But most of them aren't very popular, yet.


Facebook bans Natural News; Health Ranger responds with message for humanity (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/262709-2019-06-10-facebook-bans-natural-news-health-ranger-responds-with-message-for.htm)



Some of the big guys like Zuckerberg and Bezos are quite popular with some people. Badmouthing them might be the right thing to do, but it won't always gain you any popularity.

8)

Which is why capitalism is just dictatorship with more steps.

It's crazy how you all condemn the death of free speech and how it's just communism once again and it's just propaganda...

Well.. Yeah... That's what you get when a firm holds a complete monopole on something... And that's what happens when there is no regulation from the people. The best company slowly eats all the other ones and once they have the monopole they do whatever the fuck they want...

Capitalism anyone? That rings a bell? xD

This will definitely make it to the "outside" world eventually and the leftists are going to have a rude awakening to reality. They have milkshakes, their opponents have guns. Even the most braindead knows how that would end.

And who told you that the EU has not this as a goal?
Right wing stances are growing in the EU and this is a huge headache for European Leaders.

You are both kind of right. EU laws are definitely influencing the situation, and they are using things like copyright as a pretext to achieve this goal of censorship.

Yes, free markets don't really exist in the technology sector in the current state of capitalism.  A few big players dominate the scene and we have companies like Facebook and Google that buy up all the other companies.  People like to hate on socialism/communism for the centralization of power but capitalism does indeed have the same outcome in many ways.

Though it is of course far slower than massive immediate centralization of government of course.

But the outcome will be the same.

A good quality videos that will oppose their interest can still be shutdown. How can that be fair? First is that they have been destroying their competitors unprofessionally and now they will start to cut down anything that is against the political party which they are in favor off?

What can I say I might end up watching videos from different sources instead hhmm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdfuUEduYno

What happened with Silk Road?

This is slightly different, but I suspect that if you try to repress content on the Internet, you wind up making it more common.

Sorry for the late reply, but yes there have been a number of prominent Youtube creators who've backed up their entire Youtube back-catalog on LBRY.

Just some examples:

Jordan Peterson (2,073,327 subscribers -on Youtube- ) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@JordanBPeterson/c5724e280283cd985186af9a62494aae377daabd

Veritasium (5,918,886 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@veritasium/fb364ef587872515f545a5b4b3182b58073f230f

Timcast (421,656 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@timcast/c9da929d12afe6066acc89eb044b552f0d63782a

Gavin McInnes (334,607 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@theGavin2000/964c0e89e04bd31a3d876537f9aeef83d47ebb91

The Linux Gamer (44,002 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@TheLinuxGamer/feb61536c007cdf4faeeaab4876cb397feaf6b51

Vegan Gains (345,627 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@VeganGains/1efa9b640ad980b2ec53834d60e9cff9554979cd

Eli The Comuter Guy (947,097 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@EliTheComputerGuy/8914f8e31ae94b9d9c2011b10b43d72283beae4f

CryptoCandor (18,878 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@CryptoCandor/9152f3b054f692076a6882d1b58a30e8781cc8e6

Brian Lunduke (64,769 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@Lunduke/e8f68563d242f6ac9784dcbc41dd86c28a9391d6

Bitcoin and Friends (19,747 subscribers) => https://beta.lbry.tv/@bitcoinandfriends/a403ce7eff82b75a530dffd211ddc69847be4425

I'm sure there are at least a couple of names you recognize. I haven't made a full list, there are many more. This just shows that it's not impossible for a decentralized platform to draw in big content creators.

I think that this isn't right because, youtube it's internet and in internet shouldn't be any censorship exept self-censorship.

People whos full job is youtube are so sick of youtube's politic with its cencorship and demonetization. And btw I noticed that now they put 2 ads in thr beginning instead of 1, some of them you can't even skip. They want users to buy that premium

despite its bad, its their right, right to private discriminacy

Can you hyperlink the article you read?

I am not referencing a specific article. If you can tell me which subject in particular you are trying to learn about maybe I can help though.

Looked into it already. Thx!

Bump.

Interesting to note that this thread ran it's course and finished even before the plandemic started.  Interesting to note that now the policy is that even perfectly accurate information is banned if it 'contributes to vaccine hesitancy'.

Even more interesting, the wild and crazy 'anti-vaccine' submissions to their platform are, if anything, promoted.  Sober information backed up with links to authoritative source links are the ones which are most heavily attacked so obviously they are the biggest threat.

At this point almost every one of the Jewtube channels I used to scan has had their accounts deleted.  I basically use Jewtube to see who won a UFC match of interest, and not much more.  Let my kid watch 'Masha and the Bear' vids on it.  Bitchute is the platform I used most now since they got their indexing working (sometimes) but I don't trust them and feel that it's just a matter of time before they zap the worthwhile channels as well.  They cannot do it just yet for growth reasons, but my spidy sense tells me they are chomping at the bit, and they promote the worst kinds of limited hangout trash.  Lbry/Odysee seems the most promising to me from what little I know.

I never did 'subscribe' or 'like' anything on any platform.  The now defunct(*) channels on Jewtube that I used to scan (corbett, TLAV, knowmorenews, etc) have actually been brought back online but with a lot of the content deleted and their owners not allowed to even log in.  Clearly fishy things are going on.  What, exactly, is not clear yet.

Buttchute got their search index sort of working and thus became a workable stand-in for (((them)))tube for a while.  They heavily promote Trump-tards which necessitates some work-arounds in searching.  For this reason, among others, I figured that they were a stop-gap and didn't even bother to have an account.

Now it seems that Buttchute is damaging their index at the request of someone.  Hard to know who it might be, but when I search for a vid which I know was uploaded using a string like 'jewish ceo pfizer', nada.  Even the string 'jewish' comes up blank.  Again, it's a real mystery who Buttchute might be bending over for.  Maybe someone could help a brother out and come up with some ideas?

Anyway, I knew that it was just a matter of time before I would need to move on to (and maybe even support) a decentralized vid sharing platform.  I'll certainly look for one who's design is such that metadata can be indexed by even more nodes than have the ability to actually host content.

What would be trick would be to be able to use redirects of some such to fool the big-daddy algos into giving content a thumbs up for indexing, then flipping back to real content so end-users could find genuine content on occasion rather than just curated cat-vid garbage through their platforms.  I don't know the tech well enough to know if this could be done.

Youtube starts campaign of mass censorship and demonetization


Aw. Too bad. I kinda liked Youtube. And now they are censoring themselves right out of business.


 :'(

Back in 2018, Google and Facebook stopped accepting cryptocurrency ads and it started the dump to $3k/BTC. It's not very different from censoring and shutting down channels that influencers had already experienced just weeks ago. All these are happening even to the channels that discuss Covid19. It's coming back again to make the BTC price drop this lower again.

I have subscribed to a channel that daily posts videos but I did not receive their notification anymore.

Its time that we should move to the decentralized video sharing platforms. Such platforms does exists but we don't watch videos on those channels and therefore there is very less traffic there. If decentralized platforms become popular, these YouTube will not be able to hijack content creator rights.

Though, the very reason why content creators stick with youtube is due to the income they can generate as they gather views and likes. Plus youtube is somehow the most popular, so it's kinda obvious though.

Although if the case is somewhat like this, my first question is, will the decentralized video sharing platform generate incomes for the content creators? if yes, then this can happen, but the process will be very slow and it will take years and years before it even became known to the public