First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
How The Leftists Are Conspiring To Silence Conservatives
26349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Online
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/25/17

Rujikin wrote:
There's a new feature designed to stop ad revenue to controversial videos as well as hide controversial channels. It came about from advertisers pulling out of YouTube. I heard about it early this week or late last week. Doubt its finished yet.


I think I have sorted this out. The reason people are worried is due to companies not wanting their ads to show on controversial Youtube videos, leading to the "advertiser friendly guidelines" we have here...

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en

With labeled videos not shown on Enabled Restricted mode, but more importantly, it kills ad money I believe, making the maintenance of a Youtube Channel all the more harder.

Personally? Who cares if whether an an of oreos show up on a PewDiePie Video? Who should care? People who are racist might want Oreos too. Youtube is a larger community with a video on every topic. In any case, the dictating of appropriate shows so that companies can protect their "image" by extorting another seems more dystopia if anything, especially with content providers bearing the brunt of this.

The companies concerns are ridiculous. It is not anywhere similar to Cheerios pulling advertising from Breitbart, but a multiplatform system with so much content in general.

12052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/25/17
Seriously though OP is just joking right???
23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/25/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think I have sorted this out. The reason people are worried is due to companies not wanting their ads to show on controversial Youtube videos, leading to the "advertiser friendly guidelines" we have here...

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en

With labeled videos not shown on Enabled Restricted mode, but more importantly, it kills ad money I believe, making the maintenance of a Youtube Channel all the more harder.

Personally? Who cares if whether an an of oreos show up on a PewDiePie Video? Who should care? People who are racist might want Oreos too. Youtube is a larger community with a video on every topic. In any case, the dictating of appropriate shows so that companies can protect their "image" by extorting another seems more dystopia if anything, especially with content providers bearing the brunt of this.

The companies concerns are ridiculous. It is not anywhere similar to Cheerios pulling advertising from Breitbart, but a multiplatform system with so much content in general.


Yup you found it. That's the new thing I was hearing about was pretty much this tied in with restricted content and searches. Good job!
16 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/25/17
There is no such thing as "Liberals" or "Conservatives", both "sides" are funded by the same corporations and work mainly to keep people divided and stupid so they can continue using our country and our labor for their enrichment.

They have gotten quite good at it to, unfortunately =/
26349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Online
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/25/17

DesolationAngel wrote:

There is no such thing as "Liberals" or "Conservatives", both "sides" are funded by the same corporations and work mainly to keep people divided and stupid so they can continue using our country and our labor for their enrichment.

They have gotten quite good at it to, unfortunately =/


Ideologically, they might be considered different (For some odd reason), but in terms of the parties that supposedly uphold these ideas as paramount to their platforms? I think there is a lot of truth to your statement.

16 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/25/17
I thought that once as well, but ive come to think that the ideologies are nonsense. Liberalism to most voters seems to me to be the belief that abortion should be a woman's choice, imigration is good, tolerance is good, and that conservatives are the foolish puppets of the rich.

But what ive seen though: Most "Liberals" offer no open minded or thoughtful ideas on how to progress society. They dont seem to care about our education system that churns out ignorant factory workers who cant tell the difference between reality and what makes them feel good; our amoral and ineffective criminal corrections system, our unethical economy where people who contribute the most hardly see any of the wealth they generate, ect ect. Liberalism seems to be in reality a fake ideology.

What most conservatives seem to think is that abortion is baby killing, that immigration needs to be limited or halted, that some cultures should not mix with ours, that capitalism is great, and that liberals are puppets of the rich(Soros mainly).

But what ive seen also is that: most conservatives seem not to care about the erosion of our way of living(And/or certainly have no rational thoughts on how to fix it), people living in poverty who work full time and do their job well, the values of community and how America has always welcomed immigrants who have wanted to join our society, the monopolies that have chopped off the invisible hand of capitalism, the polices that lead our nation to loose much of it's wealth, ect ect. I also have seen the notion that "conservatives are conservative" to be a false notion and modern day conservatism to be a fake ideology.

So yeah, I pretty much agree with you! But I would go one step in a different direction and say that their ideas do not line up with their own ideologies, and are tools to create infighting pushed on people by the media conglomerates.
31113 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/25/17
More right insanity XD
1675 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17
The average Joe isn't "conspiring" to do shit. That said; it's a common characteristic of just about any ideology to try and shut down "the other team." On that note, there is some truth to what DeadlyOats said, but the idea of it being some kind of en masse conspiracy is ridiculous; HOWEVER, if the experience of Restricted Mode is as the linked video demonstrates, it's certainly a faulty and suspicious puddle of bile. I also consider the age-restriction variant obnoxious and dubious.
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Restricted Mode just seems to be able to filter mature content meant for parents to enact on their children or for people who want to avoid certain videos, with the caveat that it can be enabled or disabled.

It is reportedly locking videos concerning LGBT topics, even those with a positive light.

In any case, I do not see the big deal. Can we just not enable it then, or not click videos we think we might want to see instead of relying on a faulty algorithm?


Also, it is a video by Paul Joseph Watson, editor of the Infowars website.


this

mxdan 
11829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17
Duder, I can't even take you seriously anymore. You'd believe anything that confirms your preconceived notions about the world.
13315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17
Take this, OP! It is dangerous to go alone!



Edit: The image reminded me of a music video that makes me think of this thread in general...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urglg3WimHA

I love you Weird Al.
runec 
39464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17

Rujikin wrote:
Except he doesnt have a credibility problem. CNN.... I could fill 10 pages of content up that they. Have doctored or fake news.


Yes, he does. See this?

https://web.archive.org/web/20170117031329/http://www.infowars.com/report-cnnbuzzfeed-to-release-damaging-new-trump-tape-48-hours-before-inauguration/

This was a prank. Some Scottish dude tweeted it at him and he immediately ran with it without a thought or a shred of fact checking. It's on Web Archive now for obvious reasons. He also routinely pushed conspiracy theories through out the presidential campaign. Many of which have been forgotten now that they're no longer useful.

And that's before you even get into the fact he writes for Infowars. A website that thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax, the moon landings were fake and 9/11 was an inside job.

Oh, and turning the frogs gay. Can't forget the classic.



Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17

Rujikin wrote:
Yup, you found it. That's the new thing I was hearing about was pretty much this tied in with restricted content and searches. Good job!


Actually, the whole "advertiser-friendly content guidelines" thing has been around since the creation of YouTube. Around six months ago, though, YouTube began to enforce its policies a bit firmer. By enforcing, I mean that they tweaked their algorithm to demonetize particular videos that did not meet the guidelines. Content creators rely on their videos being considered "approved" for monetization so that they can get paid for any ad revenue gained from said video.

This is something that's been fully implemented and content creators/YouTubers have already had their outrage about it. Here are some videos that focused on the enforcement of YouTube/Google's "advertiser-friendly content guidelines":

"YouTube is Shutting Down My Channel and I'm Not Sure What To Do"
(Philip DeFranco)

"WOW! The YouTube Demonetization Fallout is Ridiculous, Biased, and Lazy"
(Philip DeFranco follow-up)

"YouTube is Censoring content?"
(Boogie2988)

"UNMONETIZED"
(Pewdiepie)

There's plenty of videos on YouTube outlining concerns until Google/YouTube made a few additional statements (the first one confused the living hell out of people). The issue was that they were demonetizing videos of YouTubers who had posted opinion videos regarding recent news at the time (terrorist attacks, Clinton/Trump [the election in a nutshell], and so on); so that, on top of the whole "I use profanity so now YouTube isn't paying me" fear/concerns = the outcry from it.

TL;DR:
Nope, this still doesn't correlate to the OP of the thread. This has been a system implemented for quite some time and has had its fair share of people freaking out about it. Pretty sure the "Restricted Mode" is the 'feature' that was in question as it's been raising the red flags of concern again by content creators/YouTube Personalities.

Edit::
Holy crap, you guys have some extensive quote pyramids going on - to the point that some of you are forgetting where to add the quote BB code to make sure it breaks down into pyramids. Can we try to keep quotes down to around two sub-quotes per comment? It starts getting really messy and convoluted after that. More so, for those who aren't closing tags properly - it makes it slightly more difficult to read your "additional" comment post-quote.
38099 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17
Restricted Mode has existed for years, and is disabled by default. According to YouTube only something like 5% of all traffic is using Restricted Mode (mainly places such as schools and libraries). It is intended to censor "inappropriate" content (which is flagged by both users and algorithms) for browsers with it enabled.

It came on the radar recently because it was discovered that it's algorithm is flagging various LGBT channels' content (these are not exactly far-right groups). Supposedly gaming channels and various others have had all or most of their content censored as well, regardless of age-appropriateness.

YouTube's already released an official apology and stated that Restricted Mode is not functioning as they intended. Which is actually pretty stunning - where YouTube is concerned, they almost never admit when something is broken, let alone apologize. That it took so long for anyone to call attention to what sort of content it's actually blocking is testament to just how few people actually use it.

Since it's entirely an opt-in feature, and they've announced no plans to make it opt-out or mandatory, I'm not particularly concerned by it. I find things like the YouTube Heroes program to be far more concerning.
5391 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17

TheAngryLittleAlchemist wrote:

Seriously though OP is just joking right???


lol nope
28766 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17
The two groups are always out to actively screw with each other. That much is true. Last year's election revealed a lot of people's positions and tactics through leaks, donor lists, words and deeds.

Google, Yahoo and Microsoft would gladly promote some stories over others in their search results and all the rest but despite that conservative commentators enjoy a healthy following. One that wouldn't exist if the companies that make that possible just erase them from the internet.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.