Youtube starts campaign of mass censorship and demonetization

[TECSHARE]

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.

[Spendulus]

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 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?

[TECSHARE]

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 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

[Spendulus]

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 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.

[TECSHARE]

i think youtube just make the rule just for decreased number of amateur youtuber and keep the good quality youtuber to make them have money

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.

[theymos]

"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.

[eternalgloom]

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.

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)

[squatz1]

"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.

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.

[TECSHARE]

"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.

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/

[TheCoinGrabber]

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.

And who owns Youtube?

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

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/

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

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

YouTube is censoring videos and channels that align with 30% 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, and by another metric, Google has a >90% market share.

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 their censorship only one day after the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

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

[TECSHARE]

It is incredibly ironic that Google announced their censorship only one day after the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

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

[PrimeNumber7]

It is incredibly ironic that Google announced their censorship only one day after the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

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" 

[TECSHARE]

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

[squatz1]

"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.

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/

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[tvbcof]

...

And who owns Youtube?

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

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.

[squatz1]

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 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.

[TECSHARE]

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 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.

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.

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.

[TheCoinGrabber]

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

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.

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.