91–100 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I tuned in out of curiosity. I'm assuming these guys are biased in favor of the defense? They were just laughing at the fact that Rosenbaum is dead. Or do they just have a dark sense of humor or something?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head , to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al. The mainstream media l…
Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure? Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"? Dystopic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this just a market opportunity for other companies? Google isn't the only company that owns the field of information retrieval. They just came the right place/right time after the .com crash.
In principle, yes. But Google seems to hold a unique position because of network effects. Countless YouTube clones have been created but none ever seem to gain enough critical mass to become viable competitors. Trying to build a competing platform on the value proposition of being anti-censorship is also fraught with perception issues.
It's worth noting that I'm loosely parroting the content of a Folding Ideas video[1] that covers the discussion of the creator vs platform relationship overall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They violated Youtube's ToS with their conspiracy theories and got kicked out, it seems. great sign of progress. Just mere 400 years ago they would have been tortured and burned at stake as heretics. Though who knows, the way things been moving lately ...
Yes I see it as progress that YouTube kicks off antivax conspiracies. It would be nice if Facebook did the same
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's entirely possible they were taken down in the first place because so many parallel streams of coverage on the same data tripped either a spam detector or an honest-to-God bug in the YouTube backend ("Hm... lots of parallel channels running the exact same bytes. I bet we can consolidate this if we just tee the stream sinks against a source that oops that's a hotspot ...").
doubt. Over the last 6 years there have been toooooo many coincidences which go in 1 direction politically instead of equally in both directions. You only need to flip a coin 5-6 times before you suspect it might be rigged... and after 100's of tosses there is no longer any question.
Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure? Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"? Dystopic
They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.
Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal justice system.
It doesn't fit the narrative that they and the entire mainstream media are so desperate to perpetuate. Allowing the plebs to see unbiased content and judge for themselves terrifies them. Same thing with removing the downvote count. They can't stand to see ratio of down to up votes on content about the current US administration, COVID, etc.
"unbiased content"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hope this comes back to bite them. I already find myself not watching as many videos simply because I can't gauge the like/dislike ratio on them. In the short term I expect an explosion in clickbait and low quality videos because people won't be able to immediately see that the video is bogus from dislike counts. I suspect people will tend to retreat into watching the channels they already like and cut down…
I find what you said really interesting, mainly because I don't think I've _ever_ used likes or dislikes (or their ratio) as a metric for choosing what to watch. The most I've interacted with dislikes is when seeing some helpful low-production-value video, or some artist's music stream, I've wondered why 1-3% of the viewers disliked it. I mean, even when I've found _better_ or _more informative_ videos, I've never be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube is such an awesome thing. The executives want to destroy it. The content creators and users are pissed off. This whole dislike thing fundamentally breaks YT for me. Completely. I will not waste time watching videos if they’re not worth watching. There is a reason why IMDB is a thing. If they remove ratings, it becomes useless. Ratings are the foundational aspect of IMDB. Google needs a lesson or two and I hop…
> There is a reason why IMDB is a thing. If they remove ratings, it becomes useless. Ratings are the foundational aspect of IMDB. Are the ratings why people go to IMDB? I use IMDB as a database on the internet for movies and TV cast/crew credits. I almost never look at the ratings for the things I look up.
8: a masterpiece
7: enjoyable
6: watchable if you like that specific thing
5 and lower: oddball
There are some exceptions for niche movies (may have very low or very high rating) and for recently aired, otherwise it's pretty reliable.